harvard college curriculum rview

Harvard University
Faculty of Arts and Sciences
A REPORT ON THE HARVARD COLLEGE

CURRICULAR REVIEW
April 2004
Contents
I. Introduction 1
II. A Brief History of the Harvard College Curriculum 3
III. Overview and Themes 5
IV. General Education 11
A. More flexible requirements and Harvard College Courses 12
B. Written and oral communication 16
C. Foreign language 18
D. Quantitative skills 19
E. Basic science 20
F. Moral reasoning 22
V. Concentration 22
A. Timing of concentration choice 24
B. The structure of concentration requirements 26
C. Concentration advising 29
D. Concentration reviews 31
VI. Introducing Students to the College: The First-Year Experience 32
A. The freshman year curriculum 32
B. Pre-concentration advising 35
VII. Expanding Opportunities 39
A. International experience 39
B. Undergraduate research 42
C. A college within a university 43
D. January term 45
E. Arts in the curriculum 48
F. Public service in the curriculum 49
VIII. Fostering Pedagogical Improvement and Innovation 51
A. Improving the classroom experience 51
B. Coordinating resources to improve pedagogy 54
IX. Conclusion 56
Appendix 1: Participants in the Curricular Review 59

Appendix 2: The Undergraduate Academic Program for the Class
of 2007 60
Appendix 3: The Undergraduate Concentrations: Numbers of
Concentrators and Course Requirements, 2003-2004 62
Appendix 4: List of Recommendations 63
A REPORT ON THE HARVARD COLLEGE
CURRICULAR REVIEW
I. Introduction
Harvard College brings together outstanding students from the United States and abroad,
who come to Cambridge to study with faculty who rank among the most accomplished in their
many fields of scholarship. We take pride in the diverse backgrounds, talents, and ambitions that
these students bring to the College, and we believe that one of the most important tasks of the
Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) is to provide them with the best possible undergraduate
education. As the world and the way we perceive and study it change, it is incumbent upon the
Faculty to revisit both the structure and the content of the undergraduate education it provides.
In an era of increasing specialization and professionalization, we reaffirm our belief in a

liberal education in the arts and sciences. We aim to educate our students to be reflective,
disciplined, and independent thinkers. We believe that a liberal education should enable students
to develop multiple perspectives on themselves and on the world, and give them the knowledge,
training, and skills to provide a foundation for their lives. The recommendations in this report
aspire to broaden the scope of a liberal education for the early twenty-first century and to expand
the choices open to Harvard College students.
This report contains recommendations for curricular renewal at Harvard. But it has
higher ambitions still. It aims to recommit this Faculty to the central mission of educating
undergraduates. It reasserts our responsibility to define what it means to be educated in this time
and place, to engage all members of the Faculty in the education of Harvard College students,
and to create a learning environment known for pedagogical excellence and innovation.
*****
a r e p or t on th e ha r v a r d c ol l e g e c ur r ic u l ar r e v ie w
In October 2002, William C. Kirby, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, announced
the first major review of the undergraduate curriculum in almost thirty years. He asked the
Faculty and the wider Harvard community to consider what it will mean to be an educated
woman or man in the first quarter of the twenty-first century. The review has generated great
interest among faculty and staff, undergraduates, graduate students, alumni, and the wider
community, leading to lively correspondence and conversations about those aspects of our
curriculum that are working well, those that would benefit from change, and the enduring values
of a liberal education in the arts and sciences.
To carry out the review, Dean Kirby and the Dean of Harvard College, Benedict H.
Gross, formed four working groups to examine issues related to general education, the
concentrations, pedagogy, and students’ overall academic experience. Each working group
included tenured and non-tenured faculty, two undergraduates, a graduate student, and an
administrator who works closely with undergraduates. To ensure consideration of the ways in
which the College interacts with and is enriched by other parts of the University, a member of
another Faculty of the University was also included in each working group. Deans Kirby and
Gross, and a steering committee that included the co-chairs of each working group, coordinated
the process. A full list of the faculty, administrators, and students who participated in the review
is included as Appendix 1. Throughout the past year, members of the steering committee and the
working groups have met with students, faculty, administrators, and alumni to discuss the many
ideas that have come under consideration.
This report summarizes what we have accomplished this year in thinking anew about the
shape of a Harvard College education. We outline an overall framework that focuses on
providing students with greater flexibility to explore new areas, to discover new intellectual
passions, and to move easily among fields of study so that they may more freely shape their
education in close consultation with faculty advisers. In many areas, there are specific
recommendations, while in others we sketch a broad approach, leaving details to be filled in at a
later stage. We have considered a wide range of proposals, and not everyone who has
contributed to this review will agree with all of its recommendations. With this report, the first
2
stage of our review is complete. There will follow, now and next year, a period of comment,
discussion, and further development.
II. A Brief History of the Harvard College Curriculum
This is not the first time that the undergraduate curriculum in Harvard College has been
considered and revised in a comprehensive way. The earliest curriculum had uniform
requirements, defined by a set of prescribed courses corresponding to those particular subjects
that an educated man should know; it was a standard curriculum that offered little opportunity
for students to exercise choice in their studies. Under President Charles Eliot (1869-1909),
Harvard College moved to the opposite extreme, that of the elective system, which allowed
students to choose their courses freely from among any of the offerings that the University could
provide. This was an era of great expansion in the scope of the curriculum, as Eliot sought to
make Harvard College a school “in which multitudes learn in many ways to take thought for
others, to exercise public functions, and to bear public responsibilities.”1 By the dawn of the
twentieth century, however, questions arose as to whether students were shaping their educations
to best effect. In 1902, a faculty committee on improving instruction was formed to review
undergraduate education under the elective system. Professor (soon to be President) A.
Lawrence Lowell was responsible for introducing into the report the notion that “every serious
man with health and ability should be encouraged to take honors in some subject,” making the
case for the value of completing a grouping of courses in a particular field.2 The framework of
“concentration and distribution,” which brought shape and structure to what existed under the
pure elective system, began under President Lowell with the Class of 1914. This formalized the
idea that students should be broadly educated while also studying one particular subject in depth.
The framework of concentration and distribution—depth and breadth—has continued to

define our undergraduate curriculum since that time, though twice in the last century the College
curriculum has seen further substantial revision. In the midst of the Second World War,
President James Bryant Conant formed the University Committee on the Objectives of a General
1
Quoted in John T. Bethell, Harvard Observed (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), p. 9.
2
Samuel Eliot Morison, Three Centuries of Harvard (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936), p. 386.
3
Education in a Free Society to articulate a unified concept of general education, not just in
Harvard College, but, more broadly, for American education. This led to the “Red Book” of
1945, in which the committee, led by the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Paul H.
Buck, defined general education as “that part of a student’s whole education which looks first of
all to his life as a responsible human being and citizen.”3 The committee’s focus for general
education in a free society was on heritage and change. For Harvard College, the General
Education Program, in which students were required to take one of a very small number of full-
year courses in each of the broad areas of the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences,
replaced an open distribution requirement in 1950.
Henry Rosovsky initiated the most recent major review of the undergraduate program in
1974, early in his tenure as Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. He and President Derek C.
Bok sought to redirect faculty resources toward undergraduate education, and also to reengage
the Faculty in the mission of undergraduate education following the divisiveness of the Vietnam
era. The framework of breadth and depth was once again affirmed, but with a major
reformulation of how breadth was to be defined. The Core Program, organized around
“approaches to knowledge” rather than mastery of specific bodies of knowledge, was adopted by
the Faculty in 1978 and fully implemented for students who entered the College in September
1982.
During the tenures of President Neil L. Rudenstine and Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R.
Knowles, there were further curricular changes. In May 1997, the Faculty voted to introduce
Quantitative Reasoning as a new Core area. The Faculty also voted in May 1997 to allow
department alternates to Core courses in the humanities and social science areas of the Core;
these already existed in the science areas. In 1998, the Educational Policy Committee began to
work to reduce the number of concentration requirements. A year later, language citations were
introduced as a means for recognizing students who completed significant work in a foreign
language. Beginning in the 2000-2001 academic year, the Freshman Seminar Program began to
3
General Education in a Free Society: Report of the Harvard Committee (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1945), p. 51.
4
be reinvigorated. At the same time, the Core requirement was reduced from eight required areas
to seven, to encourage student exploration of these seminars.
Most recently, under President Lawrence H. Summers and Dean Kirby, the Faculty began
a major initiative to make study abroad a more natural and common part of a Harvard College
education, creating a new Office of International Programs and asking concentrations to adjust
their programs to facilitate study abroad. Core requirements were reduced by one area for each
full term of credit earned abroad.
Each of these recent changes was eminently reasonable in addressing specific deficits in
the curriculum or in the experience of Harvard College students. (A summary of current degree
requirements, as they apply to the Class of 2007, is included in Appendix 2.) In retrospect, it is
also clear that these changes, when taken together, represented the early stages of a major
rethinking of the shape of undergraduate education in Harvard College. Deans Kirby and Gross
observed that the time had come to step back and to consider the undergraduate curriculum as a
whole. Did it convey a coherent vision of what the Faculty was trying to achieve? Did the
pieces mesh in sensible ways? How did the curriculum intersect other parts of the overall
undergraduate experience? It seemed wise to undertake a comprehensive review when this could
be done from a position of strength, at a time when the Faculty remained deeply engaged in both
the Core and concentration programs, yet was expressing a willingness—perhaps even a strong
desire—to think about the larger purposes of undergraduate education.
As President Summers has noted on several occasions, every institution, however strong,
should examine and reaffirm—or alter—its identity and structure at reasonable intervals. For
Harvard to do otherwise would be to ignore the social role of the University and of its graduates
at a time when the world in which they exist continues to change in profound ways.
III. Overview and Themes
What are the principles that have guided this review? What is it that we wish to achieve
in the education that we provide to students in Harvard College?
5
In an era of increasing specialization, professionalization, and fragmentation in both

higher education and in our wider society, we reaffirm our commitment to a liberal
education in the arts and sciences. We aim to provide students with the knowledge, skills,
and habits of mind to enable them to enjoy a lifetime of learning and to adapt to changing
circumstances. We seek to educate students to be independent, knowledgeable, rigorous,
and creative thinkers, with a sense of social responsibility, so that they may lead productive
lives in national and global communities.
We seek to graduate broadly educated individuals, while encouraging them to develop a

deeper understanding of one or another discipline. This commitment has informed much of our
thinking about the curriculum and underlies our recommendations. We see the goal of
concentrations not as mastery of a field of knowledge, but rather a means by which students can
develop a greater degree of sophistication in their thinking by taking a set of courses in a single
area. In general education, and indeed across the curriculum, we believe that the faculty must
exercise its responsibility to define what students need to know and how they may best learn,
while creating opportunities for students to gain sufficient exposure to a range of topics so that
they have the background and confidence to continue their learning as informed citizens when
confronted with new questions, ethical dilemmas, and opportunities over their lifetimes.
While maintaining the framework of breadth and depth, we seek to present students with
a program that is both simpler to navigate and more flexible in its requirements than is the
current curriculum. We have heard too often from students that the constraints of concentration
and Core requirements force them to focus on narrow segments of the course catalog and leave
them with too few opportunities to explore the rich array of courses that our faculty offer.
Faculty members express the same concern in a different form, saying that their departmental
courses are too infrequently taken by non-concentrators, who could add to the intellectual
excitement in the classroom by bringing new perspectives and insights drawn from other fields.
We wish to encourage students to range broadly, to follow their interests and curiosity, and to
allow them the freedom to change their minds about the areas they wish to study. We seek to
foster the kinds of intellectual engagement and excitement that pursuit of one’s passions can
provide—it is important to remember that many of our students are passionate about multiple
6
areas of study. We wish to maximize the flexibility that students have in shaping their academic
programs, whether that means delving more deeply into a single field as preparation for graduate
study or sampling many fields. Our aim is to ensure that students are broadly educated and that
they do not over-specialize prematurely; hence concentration requirements should be designed
not to train specialists but to promote the kinds of rigorous and creative thinking that we seek to
engender.
In short, we seek to broaden the scope of a liberal education and to expand choices
for Harvard College students, crafting an undergraduate curriculum that is defined less by
the requirements that it places on students and more by the commitments that the Faculty
makes to undergraduate education in the liberal tradition. To be sure, greater freedom of
choice underscores the importance of strong mentoring and advising. In too many ways, our
current set of requirements is so intricate that faculty lack the confidence to advise students even
within their concentration, fearing that they can only get it wrong. Further, the constraint of
requirements can leave little room for mentoring, and for helping a student to shape a sensible
program around his or her many interests, and lead too many advising conversations to become
exercises in checking boxes.
*****
As we renew our commitment to liberal education, we must also create a curriculum

appropriate to Harvard College in the first part of the twenty-first century. While there is a
seemingly timeless quality to the principles of liberal education, what we teach and how we
teach are shaped by the world that we inhabit and in which our students will live. Thus while we
might agree with Thomas Jefferson that a liberal education should “develop the reasoning
faculties of our youth, enlarge their minds, cultivate their morals, and instill into them the
precepts of virtue and order,” 4 it falls to our generation of faculty to define these ambitions for
our time. Six themes have guided our thinking, three of these related to ways in which the world
4
Thomas Jefferson, “Report of the Commissioners for the University of Virginia,” Writings (New York: Library of
America, 1989), p. 460.
7
or the world of scholarship has changed since the last curricular review thirty years ago, and
three related to how we may better teach our students and expand the opportunities open to them.
First, today’s world requires a greater emphasis on internationalization. As the “Red

Book” of the 1940s sought to outline how Harvard students should be educated as citizens of a
free society, we must aim to prepare students to live as citizens of a global society. Our students
of the twenty-first century go out into a world made smaller by technology, but still defined by
different and changing cultures and civilizations. They may well find themselves living and
working in another part of the world, and surely must expect to work with colleagues who bring
with them differing cultural assumptions. A central mission of Harvard College must be to
educate its undergraduates to be intellectually acute citizens of the world. This is a moral
responsibility, in the same way that educating students as citizens of a free society was in 1945.
Of course, a focus on “global citizenship” must be, by necessity, rooted in an understanding of
one’s own national traditions. Given the role that the United States plays in the world, we have a
special obligation to our students to help them understand how others view this country. This is
not a matter of choosing the world or America, but rather the world and America, for our
students should understand their own traditions in order more fully to appreciate the traditions
they will encounter when working and living with others. For our international students, we
have a responsibility to make their experience at Harvard a rich one in much the same way.
Second, our undergraduates will live in a world of ongoing scientific and technological
revolution. We are revising our understanding of the biological infrastructure of life, and
challenging conceptions of human nature and of our physical universe. As President Summers
noted in his 2003 Commencement Address, “[B]ecause of the prospect science holds for
progress in various domains, science and scientific ways of thinking are coming to influence a
far wider range of human activity than ever before.”5 We must prepare not only science
concentrators but also those students more interested in the humanities and social sciences to
grapple with the scientific and technological elements of the public policy issues and ethical
questions that will arise in their lifetimes. We must provide all students with science courses that
develop a basic understanding of the scientific method and of basic principles of the life and
5
http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2003/commencement03.html
8
physical sciences, as well as the ways in which these principles are harnessed into remarkable
innovations in technology. Despite the fact that many students are likely to use their scientific
training to consider questions of policy, they must learn principles before application. Graduates
of Harvard College should be able to understand the news and expository articles in journals
such as Science and Nature. We should no more accept the proposition that some of our students
are incapable of learning science than believe that other students are unable to master subjects in
the humanities and social sciences.
Third, modern scientific and humanistic inquiry often crosses the boundaries of
traditional disciplines. Most public policy decisions also involve considerations drawn from
varying, and sometimes contradictory, disciplinary perspectives. Just as our faculty work
increasingly in and across multiple disciplines, our students should be encouraged to explore
topics that cross disciplinary boundaries and should encounter the intellectual controversies
that exist among disciplines. We must remind ourselves that the disciplinary-based departments
that we take for granted and on which we map most of our undergraduate concentrations are little
more than a century old. While these may continue to be appropriate structures for fostering the
intellectual rigor that comes from performing concentrated work in a field, we must also find
ways for our students to explore a variety of disciplinary approaches to a problem and to pursue
collaborative work with others who have different disciplinary skills.
Fourth, turning from themes related to what we teach to those related to how we teach,
we should aim to foster communities of learning between faculty and students. A criticism of
Harvard College today is that direct, educational student-faculty contact is too limited. That
criticism is justified. In 2002-2003, 48 percent of all undergraduate enrollments were in courses
with more than 50 students, though these accounted for only 10 percent of our undergraduate
courses; among Core courses, 79 percent of enrollments were in courses with more than 50
students, and 62 percent were in courses with more than 100 students. We must expand
opportunities for students, throughout their four years in the College, to engage in small-group
instruction with faculty who not only interact with them in the classroom and in office hours, but
who also directly evaluate their work, commenting on papers, presentations, and lab results.
Indeed, we must make such encounters unavoidable, limiting severely the opportunities for
9
students and faculty to avoid intense intellectual engagement with one another. Harvard College
should be known not only as an institution in which students can sit in lecture halls to learn from
faculty who make original contributions to knowledge, but also as a place where they may
encounter, and challenge, these scholars directly in seminar and small class settings.
Fifth, with a faculty that constantly transforms knowledge, we should aim to expand
student research opportunities. Harvard College can be distinguished from many fine colleges
that focus on the liberal arts and sciences by the quality of its research faculty. We should be
similarly distinguished by the opportunities that we provide for students to engage in research,
and we should take advantage of the potential that student research provides for students to work
closely with faculty, further fostering communities of learning. In the 2003 senior survey, 29
percent of graduating seniors reported that they had participated in research with a faculty
member for credit, and 31 percent said that they had participated in research with a faculty
member not for credit; students in the sciences took part in these activities to a considerably
greater extent than did concentrators in the humanities and social sciences. In addition, 48
percent of graduating seniors indicated that they had completed a thesis or other senior project.
These numbers should be higher still, if students are generally to benefit from being part of a
leading research university.
Sixth, as Harvard’s professional schools increasingly include scholars in core FAS

disciplines—ranging from cell biology and biophysics to sociology and economics to philosophy
and religion—the FAS should take the lead in planning how our students—and indeed our
colleagues—may benefit from increased educational cooperation with our sister Faculties. Ours
is a college within a university, and we should help our students explore educational
opportunities across the University. Already, some students engage in research with faculty
members from other parts of the University and cross-register for courses; some faculty from
other Harvard schools teach courses designed specifically for undergraduates; and several
concentrations draw increasingly on faculty from across the University. We should reduce the
barriers to increased educational cooperation across the University to create opportunities that
would benefit our undergraduates. As with research, its place within a great university
10
distinguishes Harvard College from many fine colleges and should also distinguish the education
we provide.
Framed by this statement of our mission in undergraduate education and the several
themes that we have identified, the curricular review working groups and steering committee
offer a set of proposals for moving forward.
IV. General Education
Every college makes a statement of what it thinks important in the education of students
through the way it structures requirements for the undergraduate degree. With the expansion of
knowledge at an ever-accelerating rate, it is not possible (if indeed it ever was) to cover in four
years all that a given student might need to know. In any event, disseminating information is not
the same as providing an education. As custodian of Harvard College, the FAS has the special
responsibility of defining what it means for undergraduates to be educated in the arts and
sciences. To educate College students broadly, the Faculty must step back from its research
focus and the specialization that it seeks to foster in the concentrations and in its training of
graduate students, and focus instead on how fields of knowledge intersect and can be made
relevant and accessible to a broad audience. The Faculty has an obligation to guide students both
collectively and as individuals in how best to shape their educations.
How, then, should we conceive of a general education requirement? Different

institutions have defined general education in different ways. Some stress coverage of specific
knowledge that every educated person should have, while others emphasize development of
skills that are essential to the acquisition, communication, and generation of knowledge. Still
others foster common academic experiences that may serve as reference points in the intellectual
life of the community. While each of these approaches has merit (and they are not entirely
incompatible), none provides sufficient guidance to structure a requirement that meets our goals
of a curriculum that expands choice in a liberal education while also asserting the need for
courses that are both integrative and foundational.
11
A. More flexible requirements and Harvard College Courses
In reimagining the general education component of the Harvard College curriculum, we

have kept in mind both the strengths and weaknesses of our current structure. The centerpiece of
general education in Harvard College has been the Core Program, designed as a closed
distribution requirement with eleven precisely defined areas and a relatively small number of
courses available in any given area. In addition to their Core requirements, all students take at
least one term of Expository Writing, and students who have not satisfied the Foreign Language
requirement upon matriculation must enroll in a full-year language course during the freshman
year.
In many ways, the Core Program has been successful. It has led to the introduction of
many courses explicitly designed to be accessible to generalists, free of prerequisites, and able to
stand alone as the one course a student may take in a given field. Offering a Core course is often
attractive to faculty members seeking to educate a broad range of students and to teach in areas
of interest outside their departments. Most Core courses are very well taught and the Core
Program’s attention to pedagogy—for example, the nature and timing of assignments—has had
beneficial effects on other courses.
Students generally think highly of many of the individual Core courses they take, yet
student and faculty enthusiasm for the program has fallen over time. Many faculty members find
the review process by which courses are evaluated for inclusion in the Core to be opaque and
cumbersome. Neither students nor faculty have a clear understanding about the specific
guidelines of each Core area, and distinctions about why certain courses are in and others are out
are therefore difficult to explain or to justify. Because in meeting requirements students are
largely restricted to courses offered in the Core, they sometimes find themselves in courses
targeted at a lower level than is appropriate to their ability or their ambition. Symmetrically,
more advanced department courses—which do not meet requirements for non-concentrators—
often attract only concentrators. As students exercise their limited options for satisfying Core
requirements, they feel that they are involuntarily being channeled into large courses. Because
the range of Core courses is determined largely by individual faculty initiative, students
12
sometimes complain that courses in areas that interest them, and that would meet the Core
guidelines, are not available. Most important, by restricting student choice, the Core requirement
may serve to constrain intellectual development.
Harvard College students want two things from a general education program. First, they
want the flexibility to explore and define their intellectual interests as they choose courses to
meet various requirements. As noted, they frequently find the choices offered by the Core
Program to be too limiting. Second, they want guidance about which topics and approaches are
most important for them to study. While Core courses introduce students to various modes of
thought, they may do so by presenting only a narrow slice of a discipline. Many students would
prefer a set of options that provides broader and more integrated introductions to foundational
knowledge, which can thus inform their future work in the College and their lives as educated
persons. We believe that both of these desires have merit, and accept the implicit critique of the
current Core Program that underlies them. Moreover, we believe that faculty members have the
responsibility to transcend specialized areas to provide our students with an integrated
foundation to their education. As we worked to outline a framework for general education in
Harvard College, we sought to meet these several objectives.
We recommend that the Core Program be succeeded by a general education

requirement that will enhance curricular choice, educate students in a set of areas that are
defined broadly, include a wide range of courses, and provide for the development of a new
set of integrative, foundational courses. There are many ways to achieve the goals defined by
general education, and students should have greater flexibility to choose the courses that will
best serve these goals. We must hold ourselves to a high standard of curricular imperative before
imposing requirements that constrain students’ ability to explore broadly, to develop their
wide-ranging talents, and to experiment with different subjects.
It is essential, however, that the Faculty provides students with guidance about the
important concepts, texts, and knowledge that might underpin a liberal arts and sciences
education. There are, to be sure, different ways in which this might be done. Careful
consideration of the manner in which general education requirements are structured and fulfilled
13
is necessary, as is advising students about curricular choices. We have concluded that one
important way in which the Faculty can guide students’ general education is by providing
courses that will introduce them to important fields of knowledge and critical skills.
We recommend that the FAS develop a new set of courses, to be known as “Harvard
College Courses,” that will serve as a central component of a new general education
requirement. These courses will seek to be foundational with respect to broad areas of
knowledge, to cut across traditional disciplinary boundaries, and to define the basis of an
educated citizenry. Unlike the Core Program, which is meant to introduce students to the major
“approaches to knowledge” of different disciplines, Harvard College Courses are to be
integrative courses, moving beyond the disciplinary perspectives that have defined much of
modern academic life and the Core Program.
The reasons for developing this new set of foundational courses deserve emphasis, for
they emerge from the basic principles underlying this review. We live in a society, and a world,
of specialization. Our faculty members are, increasingly, specialists in particular fields or
subfields. While specialization can advance understanding, it can also lead to greater
fragmentation. If our specialist faculty are to be engaged in undergraduate education, and to
make their advances in knowledge part of that education, then they must find ways to translate
specialized knowledge into formats that are accessible to the generalist, that show how a field is
related to other areas of knowledge, and that demonstrate why it matters. Harvard College
Courses will seek to draw on multiple disciplines, assumptions, and traditions of knowledge.
They are not meant as introductions to any discipline per se, and the courses themselves are not
likely to fall under the aegis of any single department. Faculty in related areas would come
together across disciplinary boundaries, both within the FAS and across the University, to speak
with one another and with students in a common language and to define the most important
concepts and approaches that students should know about their fields. These courses might be
co-taught, or taught by a single faculty member with broad interests. They should play a
significant role in the enhancement of critical skills: close reading, logical argumentation,
expository writing, oral presentation, and, where appropriate, quantitative reasoning. We see this
14
as an opportunity for innovative and collaborative teaching, and would expect that the
preparation and teaching of Harvard College Courses would be well supported administratively.
What might a representative Harvard College Course entail? A Harvard College Course
on world histories might be built around “cultures and contacts,” introducing students to
significant moments, from multiple centuries and continents, in which civilizations interacted in
cooperative or competitive ways; it might introduce students to episodes of international trade,
war, conquest, and international organization. A world literature course might look at cultural
representation in different places and periods, and cultural flows across traditional national
boundaries and among hierarchies of culture. A social science course could focus on poverty,
bringing together historical, political, sociological, economic, public health, and normative
perspectives. In the life sciences, a Harvard College Course on the human genome could
introduce students to the processes of life from chemical, cellular, developmental, organismic,
and evolutionary perspectives.
Harvard College Courses should be flagship courses, listed at the front of the course
catalog. They should develop distinctive course materials for use in, and potentially beyond,
Harvard College. A Harvard College Course should be accessible to students who bring no
college-level background to the subject, and should make sense even if it is the only course a
student takes in a particular area of the curriculum. At the same time, we hope that these courses
will inspire students to pursue additional work in the area, and perhaps even choose to
concentrate in one of the disciplines introduced by the course. Some concentrations might
require specific Harvard College Courses as gateways into the concentration. We expect that
Harvard College Courses will be excellent courses that attract large numbers of students and
provide common intellectual experiences for many students in the College, but we do not
advocate requiring them as the sole means by which students fulfill the general education
requirement.
We recommend that Harvard College Courses provide one means to fulfill a general
education requirement. Students should also have the opportunity to meet the requirement
by selecting courses drawn from departmental and other offerings and representing work
15
across broad areas of knowledge. One possibility for defining such areas is to build upon our
current divisional structure by requiring that students complete two courses each in the
humanities, the social sciences, the life sciences, and the physical sciences and engineering, with
two additional courses in a category defined to emphasize international perspectives. On the
assumption that each concentration would include at least two courses in one of these areas, this
would entail a maximum of eight courses. Both Harvard College Courses and a large number of
designated department courses in these areas would count for the general education requirement.
Many current Core courses could be offered through departments or form the basis of a Harvard
College Course.
Having set out these recommendations, the task remains of determining more precisely
the areas of a general education requirement and the criteria for Harvard College Courses. We
recommend that the Dean, in consultation with the Faculty, set out the specific criteria for
Harvard College Courses, and define the structure of requirements for general education.
In seeking simplicity, we anticipate that the total number of areas will be fewer than the current
number; in endorsing flexibility, we expect that the structure for determining how individual
courses will meet requirements will be less cumbersome. The requirement sketched above,
which builds on our current divisional structure with requirements in the humanities, social
sciences, life sciences, and physical sciences, has the virtue of reinforcing existing structures that
reflect the ways in which faculty members do their work. But we appreciate that there are many
other ways to define a general education requirement, and do not wish to constrain those who
will work to develop it next year, with one exception: in light of the overall curricular goals of
this review, we recommend that the international and science components of the general
education requirement be significantly strengthened both in terms of the amount of time that
students devote to these subjects and the nature and quality of the instruction provided.
B. Written and oral communication
A central skill that we seek to reinforce in Harvard College is clear and effective writing.
Writing is important not only as a tool for communication, but also as a tool for thinking. The
very act of writing forces us to clarify our thinking and to marshal supporting evidence. The
16
importance that Harvard College places on writing instruction is reflected in the requirement of a
one-term writing course, Expository Writing 20, which all students must complete in the
freshman year. Roughly 100 students each year also enroll in Expository Writing 10, a writing
course that precedes and supplements the required course. While these are designed to be
courses that focus on writing, each section has a subject that provides the occasion for writing
assignments similar to those that students will do in their other courses.
Although Expository Writing serves as a common experience in providing students with

writing instruction, writing is a skill that must be developed throughout the four years of an
undergraduate education. Many concentration tutorial programs, particularly in the humanities
and the social sciences, focus on writing within the discipline. Similarly, writing is an important
aspect of departmental and Core courses. Some of these tutorials and courses work closely with
the Harvard Writing Project (a part of the Expository Writing Program) or with the Derek Bok
Center for Teaching and Learning on matters of writing pedagogy. Despite these efforts by
individual faculty members or concentrations, no systematic attention to writing in the
curriculum exists beyond the freshman requirement, particularly for the students concentrating in
the sciences. The Expository Writing Program is inadequately integrated into the rest of the
College curriculum, and there seems to be insufficient continuity between the required
Expository Writing course and the experiences students have with writing in their later courses.
Harvard College has been even less systematic in its focus on oral communication,
despite the importance that this skill will have for students both in the College and in their
professional lives. Harvard College graduates should have the ability to speak cogently and to
persuade others. Regardless of what they choose to do later in life, the ability to stand before a
group to make a presentation, and to argue persuasively a point of view, will serve them well.
Of course, many students practice these skills in section and seminar discussions, as well as in
their extracurricular activities. Some courses require students to make formal presentations, and
more courses could do so by requiring frequent short, but polished, presentations, and by staging
debates and mini-conferences. We provide little formal instruction and feedback on these skills,
however, and whether through choice or happenstance, students may not find themselves in the
formal academic settings in which these skills are reinforced.
17
In the interest of strengthening instruction in written and oral communication, we

recommend that there be a review of the Expository Writing Program. Such a review
should assess the effectiveness of writing instruction in Expository Writing courses; explore
ways of better integrating writing instruction into general education, for example, through
linkages with the proposed Harvard College Courses; determine whether introductory courses
that are writing intensive and involve writing specialists could be designated as alternatives to
Expository Writing 20; and investigate how the mission of Expository Writing can be expanded
to include the teaching of oral presentation and communication.
Because even the most able writers and speakers can benefit from practice, reflection,
and feedback, writing instruction and instruction in oral presentation should continue beyond the
first year. We recommend that concentrations make instruction and feedback on written
and oral communication an integral part of the concentration program. Tutorials might be
appropriate venues for this instruction. Concentrations may wish to collaborate with specialists
from the Harvard Writing Project or from the Bok Center.
C. Foreign language
The teaching of foreign languages, with its emphasis on cultural context, is an important
part of the way we prepare students as global citizens. Harvard College offers instruction in a
rich array of languages. An exact count would depend on how one reconciled dialects, or ancient
and modern forms of a language, but it is fair to say that approximately 60 languages are taught
on a regular basis. This year we expanded that number by inaugurating an African Languages
Program in the Department of African and African American Studies. Students report that
language instruction is among the best parts of their Harvard College educations. At the same
time, we hear from alumni that they wish they had studied more foreign language in college.
Students may meet the current Harvard College language requirement by scoring 600 on
a College Board SAT II Test that includes a reading component, by earning a passing score on a
placement examination at Harvard, by earning a language examination score that would
18
normally count toward advanced standing, or by studying a language for one year at Harvard
College. The language requirement is waived for students whose native language is not English
and who have completed high school instruction in that language. Nearly two-thirds of Harvard
College students meet the language requirement at matriculation each year, and the rest
ordinarily enroll in language courses during the freshman year. Of course, many students study
languages voluntarily: as the basis for their concentration; to earn a language citation; to prepare
for a study, internship, or research experience abroad; to read texts in the original language; to
connect with their ethnic heritage; or simply because it is useful and enjoyable. Over the past
five years, enrollments in our language courses have increased by 20 percent.
Because knowledge of a foreign language forms the basis for the global competence that
we consider essential for Harvard College graduates, all students who are not native speakers of
another language should study a foreign language in college. Just as we expect students to
supplement what they have already achieved before coming to Harvard College, through our
other general education requirement—for example in science—we should expect students to
increase their knowledge of foreign languages and the cultures that can thereby come alive for
them. We recommend that the language requirement be enhanced as follows: all students
who meet the language requirement at matriculation under present rules will be required
to take one term of a foreign language or a one-term course taught in a foreign language.
Students should be free to meet this requirement at any time during their four years in the
College. They may choose to continue at an appropriate level a language that they have already
studied or to begin a new language, perhaps as preparation for an international experience. They
may prefer to satisfy the requirement as part of a study abroad program. However they choose to
meet this requirement, they will be better prepared to enter different cultural settings in the
future.
D. Quantitative skills
Since the inception of the Core Program, competence in quantitative reasoning has been a
requirement in Harvard College. This requirement originally had two components, data analysis
and computer programming, and students were able to satisfy each part either by taking a course
19
or by passing an examination in the freshman year. As computers with standard software

packages became commonplace, the simple computer programming exercises seemed less
relevant, and this portion of the requirement was dropped. In 1997, the Faculty voted to add
Quantitative Reasoning as one of the regular areas of the Core Program, replacing the exam on
data analysis. This greatly expanded the range of subjects that students could study in order to
extend their quantitative skills. The program now includes courses in demography, number
theory, deductive logic, the analysis of algorithms, causality and inference, the mathematics of
investing, strategy in international politics, and the visual display of quantitative information.
All students not in concentrations that include a quantitative component must take a course in
this area. In many ways, the introduction of Quantitative Reasoning as a Core area is analogous
to what we now propose in the area of foreign language study, moving from a requirement based
on meeting a predefined standard to one that requires students to progress from where they begin
as freshmen.
The importance of quantitative skills has increased steadily over time. High-speed
computers enable the manipulation of huge amounts of data, expanding the range of applications
of quantitative methods. Decisions once based on hunch and art are now made on the basis of
rigorous analysis of numerical information. Informed citizens in the contemporary world must
be comfortable with interpreting data and quantitative arguments. We remain committed to
maintaining the study of quantitative reasoning as a part of the general education requirement for
all students in Harvard College. We recommend that special attention be paid to
quantitative skills in the definition of the general education requirement and in the criteria
for Harvard College Courses. One possibility would be to require students to select one or two
courses with a significant quantitative component among those chosen to satisfy requirements in
other areas.
E. Basic science
The teaching of basic science poses a special set of pedagogical issues. First,
introductory science courses must reach three different, but overlapping, audiences: students
who take science courses to meet general education requirements, students who take science
20
courses as preparation for application to a professional (usually medical) school, and students
who take these courses as preparation for concentration and more advanced work in the sciences.
Second, because of the sequential nature of science education, basic courses need to be taught at
levels appropriate to students’ prior experience and mathematical background. Third, science
has become increasingly interdisciplinary, as work that has traditionally fallen within one or
another scientific discipline is brought together in exciting new ways.
While we have seen some curricular innovation in basic science courses, this is often
limited by the departmental structures in which the courses are offered and by the requirements
for admission to medical school, which are generally defined by a fixed number of courses in the
traditional fields of mathematics, general chemistry, organic chemistry, physics, and biology. If
we take a broader perspective, we have an opportunity to rethink basic science education. We
should consider whether courses might be structured to serve overlapping groups of students,
giving pre-professional students and those who do not concentrate in the sciences a genuine view
of the excitement of research science, while providing the academic foundation required by the
science concentrations. We should consider whether introductory courses might be designed in a
more integrated way, perhaps as Harvard College Courses, so that topics in chemistry and
biology, or mathematics and physics, would be combined. Courses of this type could also work
well in preparing future scientists. More integrated introductory science courses have the
potential of freeing up the time of pre-medical students so that they can pursue a larger range of
concentrations while moving science concentrators more efficiently to upper-level courses. We
also have the opportunity to introduce more hands-on pedagogy in the teaching of basic science.
We recommend that the Dean convene a working group of science faculty to plan
the redesign of introductory science courses and to reassess the pre-medical curriculum.
This group should therefore include faculty from the Harvard Medical School, which is
undergoing its own curricular review, including a reconsideration of admission requirements.
Harvard College must also be an active participant in wider discussions of the preparation of
college students for medical school.
21
F. Moral reasoning
Even as we seek a more flexible general education program, we remain cognizant of our
responsibility to educate morally responsible citizens and leaders. There are a number of ways to
meet that responsibility. One might be to encourage faculty to develop new moral reasoning
courses while maintaining existing offerings. These courses would satisfy general education
requirements in the humanities, or perhaps in some cases the social sciences. Another might be
to incorporate a range of appropriate ethical questions into Harvard College Courses. Yet
another might be to encourage departments to incorporate such questions, where appropriate,
into their methodology courses or tutorials, or into their efforts to develop cross-disciplinary
modules in their concentrations. Moral reasoning is an area that lends itself well to innovative
instructional methods, such as using the case method to analyze an ethical dilemma. Although
we are not prepared to propose a separate course requirement in moral reasoning at this stage, we
should be committed to giving students the intellectual tools to address the challenges of
applying practical ethics to their everyday lives. We recommend that the Dean and the
Faculty examine ways in which to incorporate the study of ethical and moral questions into
the College’s general education program.
V. Concentration
All students in Harvard College must complete the requirements of a field of

concentration. There are currently 40 concentrations, some of which offer multiple tracks
focused on particular areas. Most concentrations offer both a basic program and an honors
program generally requiring more courses, additional tutorial work, and a senior thesis or
advanced seminar work at a similar level of sophistication. Some students find that their
interests are better accommodated by pursuit of a joint concentration that integrates two
concentrations into a coherent plan of study. Still other students find that they cannot pursue
their academic interests within existing concentrations or joint concentrations and pursue a
Special Concentration of their own design under the guidance of a faculty member.
22
Concentrations come in a variety of sizes and shapes, ranging in size from Germanic
Languages and Literatures, with fewer than a dozen concentrators, to Economics, with more than
seven hundred. Taken together, the six largest concentrations (Economics, Government,
Psychology, Social Studies, History, and Biology) account for half of all upperclass students in
the College. The number of courses required by a concentration varies from 9 in the basic track
and 11 in the honors track in Germanic Languages and Literatures, to 16 in the basic track and
17 in the honors track in Environmental Science and Public Policy. The Bachelor of Science
degree in Engineering Sciences requires 20 courses in order to meet accreditation requirements.
A summary of this information for all concentrations is included in Appendix 3.
For some students, work in the field of concentration is an opportunity to focus on a

special area of interest, though they plan careers that will take them in other directions. For
others, it is preparation for graduate study in that or a related field. A number of students are
able to soar academically in their concentrations, and even to produce publishable research in
their senior honors theses. There should surely be room in our curriculum for students to pursue
these goals. Harvard College should encourage students to follow their passions and undertake
major research projects. Students should be advised how best to delve deeply into a field of
study.
If there is to be a requirement that every student have a concentration, then we must ask:
What is the purpose? This is an important question, for at Harvard and elsewhere a
concentration has tended to be the largest part of an undergraduate’s program, taking one-third,
one-half, or more, of a student’s courses. We have seen that the definition of a concentration can
vary considerably. As recommended below, we believe that the purpose, structure and
requirements of each concentration should be reviewed, and indeed recertified. If we
nonetheless reaffirm the principle of requiring every undergraduate to pursue a field of
concentration, this follows from the goals that we set out for a liberal arts and sciences education,
particularly to educate students as independent, knowledgeable, rigorous, and creative thinkers.
These habits of mind, we believe, can be encouraged by asking students to study a field in some
depth, to learn how knowledge in a field is organized, and to understand how research is
undertaken—what defines an interesting question, what constitutes evidence, how knowledge
23
grows by further inquiry. Whether students go on to further work and study in their chosen
concentration or move on to something very different, they will be better prepared for having
devoted a focused part of their course work to a single pursuit. At the same time, we believe that
existing concentration requirements must be simplified and made more flexible.
A. Timing of concentration choice
Harvard College is unusual among its peer institutions in requiring students to choose a
concentration at the end of the freshman year. While not in itself an argument for change, later
concentration choice at many other institutions does not seem to prevent students from acquiring
an excellent education overall and in their chosen field. We recommend that concentration
choice be moved to the end of the first term of the sophomore year. An extra semester, with
the pressures of the first year behind them and the opportunity to sample more courses and fields,
should enable students to make better-informed choices.
Transition to college can be very stressful, and the pressure of entering an institution such
as Harvard is daunting to all but the most self-confident students. The early attention to
choosing a concentration adds further pressure. Moreover, many students are not adequately
prepared to make an informed choice by the end of the freshman year. The freshman year
curriculum is currently constrained by required courses (for example, Expository Writing,
required language courses for many students, and the expectation that they take one or two
courses to begin satisfying Core requirements). These leave little room for students to explore
new areas or to test alternative fields of concentration. Given that students may have very
limited exposure in secondary school to many of the 40 or more possible fields of concentration,
they run the risk of staying with the familiar or else opting for the unknown with little
opportunity to test it in advance. We have no reliable way to determine what percentage of
graduating seniors wish they had chosen a different concentration, but we do know that about
one-third of all students change their concentration at least once after the initial declaration.
Even with the enhanced flexibility that many of the recommendations in this report would create,
a longer period of exploration is still desirable to permit students to make their decisions under
less pressure.
24
Why, then, do we not recommend postponement of concentration choice to the end of the
sophomore year, as many of our peer institutions do? First, we are reluctant to sacrifice
sophomore tutorials. Sophomore tutorials are often a highly successful means for providing an
intensive introduction to a concentration in a small-group setting. These courses usually focus
on methodology and academic skills, forming the backbone of later work in the concentration.
While later concentration choice will move one-term sophomore tutorials to the spring and
reduce full-year tutorials to one term, we do not wish to see them eliminated entirely. At the
same time, we believe that the greater freedom to explore outweighs the loss of full-year
sophomore tutorials, and that there are other formats that can make some of the content of
sophomore tutorials available to a wider audience. Second, students should find in the
concentration an important academic community within the College. As we expand
opportunities for study abroad, growing numbers of students will be away for all or part of the
junior year. The spring term of the sophomore year will be an important moment of community-
building among new concentrators.
The courses chosen by students in their first three terms should lay the groundwork for at
least one, and possibly several, potential concentrations. Preparation for success in certain
concentrations, particularly those in the sciences, will require careful planning during the
freshman year and first term of the sophomore year, but we note that this is already the case.
Each concentration should identify several courses that are good points of entry into a field of
study, information which will also be helpful for upperclass students using electives to explore
new fields. Students and advisers should see the first few terms more clearly as a time for
exploring in a variety of areas. If developed in connection with a more flexible general
education requirement, introductory experiences in a number of different areas could count either
for concentration requirements or toward the general education requirement. Some entry-level
courses could work as preparation for and introductions to several fields. One could imagine a
set of “divisional” entry courses in broad areas, Harvard College Courses perhaps, that would
provide introductory experiences ultimately suitable to a number of different concentration paths.
25
Pre-concentration academic advising in the freshman and sophomore years will be of

central importance in the effective use of electives and for keeping concentration opportunities
open. A student implicitly narrows his or her possible concentration choices each time courses
are chosen, independent of the time of concentration choice. It will be important to develop an
advising system that is capable of providing students with good information about the several
concentrations that they are considering. We will return to this topic in Section VI.
B. The structure of concentration requirements
As we examined requirements across the concentrations, our sense was that many
concentrations are structured with a focus on comprehensive coverage of an academic field and,
at least in the honors track, preparation for graduate study. Harvard College must provide
opportunities and sound advising for students to better pursue these goals. Many of our students
are not planning to continue in the discipline, however, and take a more limited view of their
concentrations, preferring to explore multiple, perhaps unrelated, interests. We view the
requirement of a concentration as part of a liberal education in arts and sciences rather than as
certification of mastery of a field.
We recognize, of course, that no single number of course requirements would be

appropriate to all concentrations, but our sense is that the goal of depth can be met in many areas
with fewer courses than are currently required. We recommend that each concentration
review its requirements with an eye toward reducing them to a level appropriate to a
liberal arts and sciences education for non-specialists, and that there be a presumptive cap
of 12 on the number of concentration requirements. While it may be appropriate for some
concentrations to require more than 12 courses, there should be a special burden to justify such
additional requirements. To be sure, students wishing to study a field more deeply or to prepare
for study toward the Ph.D. should be advised how they might use their elective choices to these
ends. Other students, however, should have the freedom to use a greater number of electives in
other ways.
26
To promote a spirit of true intellectual inquiry common to all concentrators, and to avoid
the invidious distinction between those students who pursue honors and those who do not (as if
the latter signified mediocrity), we recommend that each concentration, or field-specific
track within a concentration, formulate a single set of requirements for all concentrators,
in place of the existing basic and honors tracks. This single track could include options for
the completion of specific requirements, so that the experience of writing a thesis would remain
available to students who desire it, but thesis tutorial would substitute for two other courses.
Such a structure would continue to encourage students to prepare for and write senior theses.
Although “honors-only” concentrations would no longer exist as such, concentrations could
require the submission of a senior thesis as an essential part of its program for all its students, or
leave it as an option. The writing of an honors thesis can be an important culminating experience
for many students, and should remain as an opportunity. However, we recommend the
development, where appropriate, of alternative capstone experiences to the senior thesis.
Some of these might entail the collective effort of a group of seniors under faculty supervision,
for example in the mounting of a conference or a performance. In each concentration, an honors
recommendation would be based on the quality, not the quantity, of a student’s work within the
concentration. What would be eliminated is the notion of choosing an honors track early on in
the concentration, as well as the practice of adding requirements to the so-called “honors track.”
Tutorials are an important part of many concentrations, but what is meant by “tutorial”
varies widely. In some cases these are small seminars, while in others they are independent
sections bound together by a shared lecture series. In still others they are individually-guided
reading and research programs. In some concentrations, professorial faculty members (that is,
assistant, associate, or full professors) are very active in this manner of instruction; in others,
lecturers and graduate students are largely responsible for much of the teaching in the tutorial
setting. Some concentrations have very little in the way of tutorial instruction, or none at all
apart from guidance for the senior thesis, while in the committee-led concentrations, and in some
department-based concentrations, tutorial instruction provides the core of the undergraduate
program. To some extent, this diversity of arrangements suits the varying pedagogical and
intellectual needs of programs across the College, and we hesitate to recommend increased
standardization of programs or uniformity of tutorial requirements across the curriculum. At the
27
same time, tutorial programs will often provide the best venue for the reinforcement of writing
and speaking skills in the concentrations. In addition, we feel that two areas deserve highlighting
as opportunities to pursue general principles of this review.
First, tutorial experiences offer an excellent opportunity for increasing student-faculty

contact. Because tutorials can be such valuable parts of students’ concentration experiences, it
seems especially important to ensure that professorial faculty members are influential in shaping
that part of the undergraduate program. It may be that in some cases direct tutorial instruction by
professorial faculty is not the most efficient use of Harvard’s scarce faculty resources, but we
recommend that all tutorial programs be headed by professorial faculty with responsibility
for the oversight of syllabi and instruction. Changes in this area could provide even stronger
educational experiences for undergraduates and better guidance and training for graduate
students and post-doctoral lecturers involved in teaching. They could also allow for a stronger
sense of participation by the professorial faculty in the core areas of undergraduate instruction.
Second, junior tutorials seem to be in need of special consideration in some

concentrations, since the structure and reach of these tutorials differ significantly. In some cases,
it seems wiser to replace the current one-on-one tutorial system, staffed by lecturers and graduate
students, with small seminars taught by professorial faculty. In particular, we recommend that
all concentrations introduce a junior seminar program of faculty-taught, small-group
seminars, or otherwise ensure that all concentrators enroll in a small course taught by a
faculty member. While we recognize that large concentrations will not be able to provide the
same degree of student-faculty interaction as is commonplace in many small concentrations, we
think it is important that all students have the opportunity to grapple with disciplinary questions
in small group settings, recognizing that this may mean that large courses will become larger.
The Departments of Government and of English and American Literature and Language, among
others, already offer very successful junior seminar programs that bring together concentrators
and faculty in small-group settings.
As we think about the intellectual content of concentrations in light of our goals for a
liberal education, we find it important to ensure that all students gain some command of a
28
discipline and also have the opportunity to do cross-disciplinary work in an area of application.
Some concentrations focus on disciplines and others focus on multi-disciplinary areas of study,
but both types would be strengthened by some motion in the opposite direction. We
recommend that all concentrations review their requirements to reassess the balance
between disciplinary focus and opportunities for cross-disciplinary work, at both the
introductory and advanced levels. In some cases, it will make sense to give students a choice
between additional discipline-based work and work that crosses disciplinary boundaries.
There are several models for facilitating cross-disciplinary work in discipline-based

concentrations. One possibility would be the expansion of multi-disciplinary tracks within
concentrations, along the lines of the current Mind, Brain, Behavior tracks in Biology, Computer
Science, History and Science, Philosophy, and Psychology. These concentration tracks base
students within a discipline, while also bringing them together with concentrators in other fields
to study a topic of mutual interest. Other potential topics for concentration tracks within
discipline-based concentrations are global health, development studies, urban studies, ethnic
studies, and health policy. A second approach would be for concentrations to identify or create
multi-disciplinary clusters of courses. For example, concentrators in Economics, Sociology,
Government, Anthropology, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Biology could combine their
concentrations with multi-disciplinary work in health policy, global health, national security, or
climate change. Yet a third approach would be to create senior seminars on applied topics
combining students from several concentrations, perhaps to tackle a problem collaboratively,
each bringing his or her expertise from a relevant discipline. This type of course could serve as a
capstone experience different from the independent senior thesis. These cross-disciplinary
experiences could provide an opportunity for significant intellectual collaboration between
faculty and advanced students, and could also form the basis for smaller academic communities
in larger concentrations.
C. Concentration advising
As students gain greater flexibility, both in concentrations and in the curriculum as a

whole, and have more freedom to shape their education to suit their particular interests and
29
needs, the role of advising will become even more important. It is difficult to speak in general
terms about concentration advising, as structures and experiences of advising vary so
dramatically (if fairly consistently over time). This is hardly surprising, as it is impossible for
very large concentrations to operate on the same model as the smaller concentrations; it is
unreasonable to expect every faculty member to take on the responsibility for advising as many
as twenty concentrators. Nevertheless, it is important to state a few principles.
First, senior faculty should have responsibility for participating in and coordinating
concentration advising. We recommend that the Head Tutor or Director of Undergraduate
Studies in each concentration (with a preference for the latter title because of its clarity) be
a senior faculty member charged with oversight of concentration advising and monitoring
of students’ academic progress within the concentration. In addition, concentrations should
ensure that faculty members are participating in advising; as a corollary, faculty time devoted to
advising should be acknowledged, perhaps as equivalent to a major committee assignment. We
recommend that concentrations, particularly the larger concentrations, increase faculty
participation in concentration advising. One model, already in place in the Department of
English and American Literature and Language, is to assign several faculty members to be
available to students for regular office hours in the Office of the Director of Undergraduate
Studies. Large concentrations may also wish to include well-qualified graduate students as
advisers, and while the primary responsibility for concentration advising lies within the
concentrations, concentrations may wish to have House tutors serve as advisers. Regardless of
how concentration advising is organized, we recommend that each student be assigned a
concentration adviser. In addition, we recommend that students be required to meet with
an adviser for a substantial discussion at least twice per year.
One special subcategory of advising is the advising of senior honors theses. Students
often report difficulty in identifying a faculty member who is willing to advise their theses.
While there is considerable variation across the concentrations, on the Class of 2003 senior
survey, 69 percent of respondents reported that they planned to do a senior thesis or project when
they entered their concentration, 57 percent began a thesis or a project, and 48 percent completed
a thesis or project. Of those who did not complete a senior thesis or project (whether or not they
30
began one), 16 percent reported that the main reason was that they were unable to find a suitable
adviser. Of those who began a thesis or project, 33 percent reported that it was “difficult” or
“very difficult” to find an adviser. We consider this situation to be unacceptable. We
recommend that each concentration ensure that every student who wishes to pursue a
senior thesis is matched with a thesis adviser. A system of this type is already in place in the
Philosophy concentration, in which students prepare summaries of their proposed topics and the
department matches them with appropriate advisers. Of course, our intent here is not to preclude
students from identifying their own advisers if they wish to; it is rather to assert that the ultimate
responsibility for matching students with thesis advisers rests with the concentration. We remind
colleagues that legislation adopted by the Faculty in 1979 already requires all faculty to advise at
least one undergraduate thesis or tutorial.
Student feedback on advising and other aspects of the concentration program, including
suggestions of new courses that they would like to see offered, can be very valuable in the
improvement of concentrations. We recommend that each concentration establish an
Undergraduate Studies Committee, composed of concentrators, to provide systematic
feedback and suggestions for improvements in the course offerings and structure of the
concentration.
D. Concentration reviews
In spring 1992, Dean Knowles established the Educational Policy Committee (EPC) as an
advisory committee to the Dean. Dean Knowles’s charge to the committee was fourfold: (1) to
review issues of broad educational importance; (2) to review all aspects of the curriculum outside
the Core Program; (3) to review proposed new concentrations and programs, as well as changes
to existing ones, making recommendations to the Faculty Council as appropriate; and (4) to
advise the Dean on the allocation of academic resources. While the EPC has taken up a number
of topics over the past 12 years, its major focus has been on the concentrations.
We have made a number of recommendations in this report that will require each
department and concentration committee to reassess its mission, to review and restructure its
31
concentration program, and to revise concentration requirements. As part of this process, we

recommend that the Educational Policy Committee engage each concentration in a review
of its purpose and structure as part of a recertification of all concentrations.
VI. Introducing Students to the College: The First-Year Experience
Each year, Harvard College welcomes an entering class of approximately 1,650 students,
who bring to the College a wide range of experiences and aspirations, great vitality, and an
extraordinary range of talents and abilities. Harvard College must help them assimilate into a
residential academic community. While many resources address the social transition of
attending college, we focus below on the academic and curricular transition. We seek in the
freshman year to give students a set of academic tools and an opportunity for intellectual
exploration and growth that will initiate them into a scholarly community and form the
foundation of their four years in the College. This requires careful attention to the range of
experiences we offer to students in their first year and to the advising resources we make
available to them as they make choices.
A. The freshman year curriculum
Freshman year should be a time for students to explore broadly, to sample college-level
work in both familiar and unfamiliar fields, and to discover new academic passions. It should
also be a time to experience small faculty-led seminars that foster intellectual engagement,
inquiry, and debate. In many ways, our current curriculum offers too few opportunities for this
kind of exploration. All students take a term of Expository Writing. Between 35 and 40 percent
of first-year students enroll in two terms of foreign language instruction. Students are advised to
begin taking Core courses, and, because of the relationship between the Core requirement and a
student’s choice of concentration, they are advised to choose courses from those Core areas most
distant from their likely concentration choice. Some students enroll in math and science as a first
step toward meeting pre-medical requirements. With an eye toward choosing a concentration in
May, students begin to sample one or more potential concentrations. All of these elements can
32
constrain a student’s ability to make a truly informed concentration decision that is based on
wide and varied academic experimentation.
Many of the recommendations that we have already presented aim to provide students
with greater flexibility. A general education requirement that offers students a wider range of
options will remove many of the distinctions among general education, concentration, and
elective choices. We have suggested a review of the freshman writing requirement to see
whether instruction in this area might be linked to Harvard College Courses or other writing-
intensive courses. The postponement of formal declaration of concentration until the fall term of
sophomore year will allow students to explore in a purposeful but more relaxed way. In addition
to these changes, we recommend that students no longer be required to meet the foreign
language requirement in the freshman year. Students who have not met the language
requirement at matriculation have been expected to enroll in a full year of language instruction
during the freshman year. With the greater emphasis on language study implicit in our focus on
international experience, the opportunity to earn a foreign language citation, and the requirement
that all students study a foreign language, we believe that there would be sufficient incentives for
language study that this need not be required in the first year, and that it is better to permit
greater choice and exploration during the first year of college. Students who have studied but
not yet mastered a foreign language, however, should be strongly advised to continue their
language instruction during the freshman year, in order to avoid the loss of skills that could
otherwise occur.
In the past several years, the growth of the Freshman Seminar Program has greatly
expanded the opportunities for first-year students to enroll in small, interactive courses taught by
faculty. Students describe their experiences in Freshman Seminars in very positive terms. They
enjoy the opportunity to interact with a faculty member and with fellow students on an academic
topic of mutual interest. The facts that enrollment is limited to freshmen, and that letter grades
are not assigned, add to their attraction. Demand has grown as the range of offerings has
expanded, and the reduction of Core requirements has created more curricular space for students.
This will increase further if we replace the Core Program with more flexible general education
requirements for which some, if not all, Freshman Seminars will count, and as more
33
concentrations have agreed to count Freshman Seminars toward concentration requirements.

Faculty who have taught Freshman Seminars have also been enthusiastic about the experience,
praising the energy and engagement that students bring to these classes. We recommend that
the FAS continue to expand the Freshman Seminar Program with the goal of offering
enough seminars to accommodate the entire freshman class by academic year 2006-2007.
Moreover, because of the special value that we place on such instruction for integrating students
into an academic community, we recommend that all freshmen be required to enroll in a
small-group, faculty-led seminar, such as a Freshman Seminar or its equivalent, in the
freshman year.
Courses in which students are “tracked” based on different levels of preparation

(languages, math, sciences) pose a special challenge because, in many cases, placement is more
an art than a science. The goal of faculty and students alike is enrollment of students in courses
at an appropriately challenging level, but with new material that will force them to stretch. We
wish to avoid situations in which students hold themselves back, fearful of taking a risk, and also
those in which students find themselves in courses in which they cannot succeed, and face the
prospect of dropping the course and falling behind in progress toward the degree. We
recommend that departments in which courses are tracked have clear provisions for
correcting a student’s placement during the semester. This will likely mean greater
coordination early in the term among the courses at different levels so that students who move
between them are not greatly disadvantaged, and also clear decision points at which faculty
advise students to make changes.
As part of our emphasis on exploration, we also believe that students should be

encouraged to take academic risks and to challenge themselves by sampling areas of interest in
which they feel less prepared. At this early stage of their college studies, options to take courses
free of the burden of a letter grade on their transcripts should be expanded. This should be a time
when the possibility of low grades is not a constraint on intellectual exploration. Under our
current rules, freshmen must ordinarily take at least three letter-graded courses in any term, and
may not take both a Freshman Seminar (graded SAT/UNS) and another non-letter-graded course
in a term. Rather than limiting options for exploration through such policies, we would like to
34
mandate a minimum number of non-letter-graded courses and encourage students to take a larger
number. We recommend that students be required to take at least two courses during the
freshman year that are not letter-graded, and be allowed to take up to four. These courses
should have “shadow” grades available to the student and his or her adviser so that they know
the student’s status in the course, but these grades should not be recorded on the transcript. As
faculty work through the implementation of this proposal, it will be important to think carefully
about how this will interact with grade requirements in general education courses taken at any
time in a student’s college career, to be certain that the option of taking courses without letter
grades in the freshman year does not create incentives to take certain courses earlier.
Before leaving the topic of the first-year curriculum, we wish to note a countervailing
consideration. Initiation into a scholarly community is not only about curricular exploration and
discovery. It is also about encouraging academic conversation and debate outside the classroom,
and this can be facilitated by common curricular experiences. We already have a number of
courses in which many freshmen are enrolled and provide this opportunity: Biological Sciences
50: Genetics and Genomics; Chemistry 5: Introduction to Principles of Chemistry; Moral
Reasoning 22: Justice; Science B-62: The Human Mind; and Social Analysis 10: Principles of
Economics come to mind as some examples. As we look to the future, Harvard College Courses
may also play this role.
B. Pre-concentration advising
Freshmen arriving at college need considerable guidance as to how best to make their
way in an academic community. All colleges struggle with this and there are no simple answers.
Advising systems being abandoned at one institution are often simultaneously adopted elsewhere
in an effort to improve what is seen to be an inadequate system. Given the complexity of the
FAS and the wider University, we face particular challenges, which will become greater with
later concentration choice. No one individual can know the details of the many courses offered
or all of the options available to students. Nor should students expect that all advisers would
give the same advice. Each student needs to sort through advice given by several individuals,
each from a different perspective, to determine what choices to make and which course of action
35
is best for him or her. At a minimum, students should be able to expect clarity about
requirements, and helpful guidance about where to turn for more specific information. The
principles that should guide our advising system are clarity, coordination, and faculty
participation.
Because the advice given to freshmen and others prior to choosing their concentrations
must be consistent with the concentration and general academic advice given to upperclass
students, we recommend that the Dean of Harvard College create an office to coordinate all
aspects of academic advising. The office would focus particularly on pre-concentration and
general curricular advising, but it should create materials and design training programs for all
aspects of academic advising. The office would work closely with concentrations to evaluate
and improve their advising systems. In addition to its work with advisers and concentrations, the
advising office should prepare materials, both printed and electronic, to provide an integrated
framework for advising at Harvard College. Advisers and students could both benefit from
current information technology. By drawing on a database of the requirements of all
concentrations, a web site could lay out the consequences of any particular academic plan,
especially the avenues for specialization that it either provides or precludes. Such a tool would
assist advisers in providing sound counsel across a great breadth of disciplines. The staff of the
advising office, along with other College administrators and some faculty, should hold periodic
group sessions and also be available for appointments and on a walk-in basis. We do not
envisage that an adviser from such an office would function as the primary adviser, but rather
would provide backup and triage to help point students to appropriate sources of advice and
information.
In our current freshman advising system, each student is assigned to a proctor—usually a

graduate or professional school student or an administrator—in his or her dormitory entry, who
is responsible for dealing with personal, social, and community issues and for communicating
and enforcing the standards of the College. An academic adviser is also assigned to guide the
student as he or she considers course and concentration choices and faces the challenges and
opportunities of college-level work. For almost 70 percent of the freshman class, the proctor and
academic adviser are the same person. The remainder of the class is assigned to non-resident
36
advisers drawn from the faculty or administration. While the number of faculty members
participating in freshman advising has grown over the last several years, it remains very small.
Freshman year is a time in which students should consider their educations broadly, and
when advisers should challenge preconceptions about areas of focus, and urge students to
consider their options. Students must also be able to obtain the specific advice needed to prepare
for the more advanced course work they hope to do. We recommend that pre-concentration
academic advising be separated from proctoring, and that each freshman be assigned to an
adviser with related academic interests. Students need not be assigned an adviser from their
intended field of concentration (which might serve to limit rather than to encourage exploration),
but they should have an adviser with interests that broadly coincide with theirs. One possibility
would be to match students on the basis of the academic division within which their interests fall.
In most cases, pre-concentration academic advisers should be faculty members or arts and
sciences graduate students, though administrators with appropriate academic backgrounds might
also serve as advisers. We recommend that the Dean of Harvard College work with
departments to encourage more faculty to serve as pre-concentration advisers. Currently,
many faculty seem not even to be aware that this is an option. With a more flexible and open
curricular structure, we believe that it will be both less onerous and more interesting to be an
adviser as the task becomes increasingly focused on helping a student explore his or her interests
and less about the minutiae of requirements and rules. Faculty and graduate students who take
on a substantial pre-concentration advising load should be compensated appropriately for their
time.
Much informal advising occurs, of course, whenever students and faculty talk with one
another, and less formal conversations often facilitate more focused advising sessions.
Regardless of whether a student’s adviser is a faculty member or another member of the
community, we believe it would be beneficial to create settings that break down some of the
barriers to student-faculty interaction during the freshman year. We recommend that the
advising office organize a series of dinners for 15 freshmen with a faculty member, the
students and faculty member matched by broad areas of academic interest. It will be
valuable to have these events early in the freshman year, perhaps as early as Freshman Week.
37
For many aspects of advising, students will need to be directed to the concentrations, and
concentrations will wish to reach out to potential concentrators. We recommend that, building
upon existing procedures by which students indicate possible areas of concentration, the
concentrations take responsibility for sharing important advising information with
prospective concentrators. This is particularly important in the sciences and other fields in
which students may close off opportunities if they postpone introductory courses.
Concentrations will also be able to use information about possible concentration choices to reach
out to and welcome potential concentrators.
Students also receive a great deal of advice from one another, particularly from older
students who can tell them about the experience of being in particular courses or concentrations.
Freshmen encounter upperclassmen in formal classroom settings and in their extracurricular
activities. More can be done to bring first-year and upperclass students together through the
House system. We recommend that freshmen be assigned to a House before the start of
freshman year and be housed together in dormitory entries affiliated with their House.
While we do not expect freshmen to take their meals in House dining halls on a regular basis, we
hope that they will be included in other House events and made aware of House resources. For
example, freshmen sometimes find themselves in courses taken mostly by upperclassmen and are
unaware of the study groups and help sessions provided by resident tutors in the Houses. The
opportunity to interact with students who are already in various concentrations will help
freshmen begin to think about which concentration will best suit them. It might also be possible
to organize pre-concentration advising within the House framework, provided that the Houses
are given additional resources to undertake this, and to match each freshman with an upperclass
student who has related interests for less formal peer advising. We suggest that the Dean of
Harvard College convene a group of students and House Masters to engage in a broad discussion
of this recommendation.
38
VII. Expanding Opportunities
A college academic experience is defined by more than a number of courses and a set of
requirements. It is also defined by the range of options from which students may choose. As we
reviewed the current undergraduate program in Harvard College in the context of the several
themes of this review, we noted a number of areas in which we believe that the FAS should
expand the range of courses and experiences that it provides to students.
A. International experience
We do a great deal in Cambridge to foster international education and understanding.

The College and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences are themselves international
communities with over 10 percent of undergraduates and over 30 percent of graduate students
(many of whom will interact with undergraduates as House tutors, teaching fellows, and
advisers) coming from outside the United States. The FAS offers instruction in roughly 60
languages, as well as courses dealing with almost every part of the world. Departments and area
centers bring speakers and visitors from around the globe, and sponsor many activities for
undergraduates. There are limits, however, to what we can do locally to help students develop
global competence, an empathetic appreciation of another culture, and the ability to work as part
of a team across cultural boundaries. This requires a significant firsthand encounter with another
culture, in order to develop a set of skills that can later be transferred to other cultural contexts.
Many Harvard College students include an international experience as part of their

education. From the Class of 2003 senior survey, we know that about 59 percent of graduating
seniors had gone abroad during their tenure at Harvard College for formal study, an internship or
fellowship, or employment. Most of this international activity took place during a summer,
rather than during an academic term. Because of the many ways in which Harvard College
students pursue international experiences, it is difficult to determine the precise number of
students who study, research, or work abroad in a given year, but we believe that 700 is probably
a minimum estimate of the number of students who pursued purposeful international experiences
last year. We also know, from the Class of 2006 freshman survey administered in May 2003,
that the vast majority of students—84 percent—were planning an international experience during
39
their time in the College. Nearly 81 percent were considering study abroad for degree credit,
almost evenly divided between term-time and summer.
Because of the important contribution that an international experience can play in the
education of Harvard College students, we recommend there be an expectation that all
Harvard College students pursue a significant international experience during their time in
the College, and that completion of such an experience be noted on the transcript. We stop
short of recommending a formal requirement, recognizing that there may be personal or
academic circumstances that make it difficult for a student to spend a significant period of time
abroad, and that world events may interfere at the last minute with even the most carefully-
conceived plans. Even in the absence of a requirement, this expectation would represent a
commitment by the FAS to develop opportunities and to provide financial support to enable all
students to take part in international programs. We recommend that the FAS expand its
allocation of financial support, including summer grants, salaries, stipends, and loans, in
order to make it possible for all students to pursue at least one international experience.
Our conception of a significant international experience is broad. We seek to recognize

any experience that would instill global competency. While specific details remain to be
determined, a significant experience would seem to require immersion in another culture for an
extended period of time, ideally two months or more, though we can imagine shorter
experiences, including those that might be organized during a January term, if they are
sufficiently intensive. We would expect that study abroad for a summer, term, or year, as well as
international internships, independent research, volunteer work, or employment abroad would
qualify, but that travel for tourism or recreation would not. While we presume that a purposeful
mission in a non-Anglophone culture or third-world society would instill a higher level of global
competency than would a similar experience in England or Australia, we also accept that
experiences in any country are potentially significant.
Much will need to be done to expand the menu of opportunities available to Harvard
College students. For example, we should explore the prospect of working with networks of
alumni abroad to identify opportunities for summer work and internships. We may wish to
40
establish additional Harvard offices abroad to identify such opportunities and facilitate direct
enrollment in foreign universities. The David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies’
office in Santiago, Chile, provides a useful model for how such an office abroad can serve our
students.
Study abroad for Harvard College degree credit will form a substantial subset of students’
international experiences. Last year, the FAS made significant changes to its policies regarding
study abroad, and established a new Office of International Programs. Credit for study abroad
now seems more straightforward: credit for up to eight courses in a year, four courses in a term,
and two courses in a summer may be granted for participation in an approved international study
program. There are many approved programs available to students, information about them is
readily available on the Office’s web site, and the application process for Harvard credit has been
greatly simplified. Core requirements have been adjusted for those students who pursue a full
term or year of study abroad for degree credit, and many concentrations have begun to identify
programs abroad that are appropriate for their concentrators, some even making adjustments in
their curricula to accommodate study abroad. The History concentration, for example, has made
changes in its tutorial program to facilitate participation in term-time study abroad. We
recommend that the Office of International Programs, in consultation with the
concentrations, identify study abroad programs in which Harvard College students may
enroll for degree and concentration credit, and that all concentrations plan requirements
and course sequences to accommodate one term of study abroad.
Making international experience—particularly term-time international experience—a

more commonplace part of the Harvard College experience will require other changes in our
ways of doing business. More will need to be done to prepare students for spending an extended
period of time abroad, and more done to support their reentry to their House and the College
community. Houses and concentrations will want to stay in touch with their students who are
abroad, so that an international experience will seem less like a leave of absence from the
College and more like an aspect of an extended Harvard College experience. Houses may wish
to rethink housing policies as more students take a term abroad. Extracurricular organizations
may also wish to rethink the path to leadership positions, so that students may feel freer to spend
41
time away from Cambridge. We encourage the Office of International Programs, the Office of
Career Services, the Houses, and the College staff to work collaboratively toward better
accommodating a larger number of students taking a semester to work or study abroad.
B. Undergraduate research
For many students, the opportunity to carry out a sustained research project under faculty
supervision is one of the highlights of their undergraduate educational experience and a
complement to the type of learning that takes place in the classroom. Indeed, many students ask
about research opportunities even before deciding whether or not to attend Harvard College.
Research represents the kind of close work with faculty that is particularly well suited to Harvard
as a research university. Our outstanding library system provides a unique resource that should
be central to the education of undergraduates. We should aim to introduce our students to
libraries and laboratories as early as possible. As has been noted, many of our concentrations
build toward a senior honors thesis or project as the capstone of concentration work. Roughly 50
percent of Harvard College seniors write a thesis or complete a senior project. Many students
are ready to engage in research at an earlier stage, often as early as the summer after the
freshman or sophomore year. Some students pursue research for course credit as part of a
tutorial or supervised reading and research course; others participate as research assistants in a
faculty research project; still others pursue their own research in place of term-time and summer
jobs, though this can raise questions of financial support.
Considerable support for undergraduate research at Harvard exists already. Opportunities

can be found among departments, centers, outside agencies, and individual faculty members who
support undergraduates from their grants and research accounts. Centralized support for
undergraduate research falls under the rubric of Undergraduate Research Programs, administered
by the Student Employment Office. Our undergraduate research programs have three
components: The Faculty Aide Program encourages professors to hire undergraduate research
assistants by providing half of the student’s wages, the Harvard College Research Program
supports student-initiated research undertaken with the guidance of a faculty mentor, and the
Dean’s Summer Research Awards Program provides students who have already received a
42
research grant with an additional grant to cover the summer savings requirement of their
financial aid package.
In recent years, almost all requests from FAS faculty to support undergraduates through
the Faculty Aide Program have been met. The Harvard College Research Program has been able
to fund most student applicants who submit worthy proposals and who have the endorsement of
a faculty sponsor for support during the academic year. But there is a considerable shortfall in
funding for summer research. During the summer, students hope to be able to cover the costs of
living in or near Cambridge, pocket money, and, for those on financial aid, the expected summer
savings toward College expenses. Some projects can require domestic or international travel.
For summer 2004, there are more than 500 applications for research funding; only a small
number of these can be fully funded. The need for additional resources in this area is clear.
We endorse an increase in the opportunities for undergraduates to engage in research

projects, either their own or as research assistants, with special attention to enhancing
opportunities for underclassmen who are eager to commence doing research and are often
hampered by inadequate funding and a lack of information and advice. We recommend an
increase in funding for undergraduates to engage in faculty-supervised research projects
over the summer. Ideally, every student would have the opportunity to devote a summer to
research. Also, we recommend that the College provide to all students comprehensive
information and advice about faculty-supervised research projects and funding sources.
The Faculty’s various research centers should be a rich source of undergraduate research
opportunities, and centers should explore how to involve undergraduates in research. We urge
the College to work with the centers to develop and publicize opportunities.
C. A college within a university
Given its place at the center of the University, Harvard College is in a position to offer its
students academic opportunities that go beyond the confines of the FAS and take advantage of
the resources available at the graduate and professional schools. Much of this is already
happening. During the last academic year, there were 307 undergraduate enrollments by cross-
43
registration in other Faculties of the University, half of these at the Kennedy School of
Government.6 This number does not include enrollments into courses jointly offered by the FAS
and another Faculty of the University, in which cases each Faculty lists the course in its own
catalog with its own course number; the FAS is offering 186 such courses this year, 90 of which
are at the undergraduate level and 59 of which are taught or co-taught by members of other
Faculties of the University. Even this number fails to include courses specifically designed for
undergraduates and offered only in the FAS, such as the Freshman Seminars offered this year or
last by members of the Faculties of Design, Education, Law, Medicine, and Public Health,
courses in Statistics taught by faculty members from the School of Public Health, and other
courses in the Core Program and scattered throughout the catalog. Two of our undergraduate
concentrations, The Study of Religion and Environmental Science and Public Policy, were
designed with the explicit expectation that they would draw extensively on faculty and course
offerings from other parts of the University. Beyond this, undergraduates turn to members of
other Faculties for thesis and other advising and to work on research projects.
Although the undergraduate experience already takes some advantage of opportunities in

our sister Faculties, we believe that expansion of such opportunities is consistent with our
primary commitment to a liberal education in the arts and sciences. The professional schools
now often appoint faculty with academic backgrounds and research agendas similar to those of
FAS faculty, and who teach courses that could be offered in the FAS. While we do not think it
appropriate for undergraduates to enroll in courses aimed directly at professional training—and
our understanding is that the professional schools would not want undergraduates to enroll in
such courses—there are courses in the graduate and professional schools that are entirely
appropriate as components of a Harvard College education, either as part of a concentration or as
elective choices.
While not all courses offered by the graduate and professional schools may be
appropriate for a liberal education, a large number of faculty members from other parts of the
University can teach courses directed at undergraduates and are apparently interested in doing so.
The FAS should welcome courses appropriate to the undergraduate curriculum that are taught by
6
In addition, there were 172 undergraduate enrollments in courses offered by M.I.T.
44
members of other Faculties of the University, and we recommend that the Dean, working with
the President, Provost, and the deans of other Faculties, develop policies to reduce the
financial and administrative barriers that impede faculty from one part of the University
teaching in another. Coordination of calendars across the University is one step in this
direction in that professors who simultaneously teach courses in two Faculties would have the
same academic calendar in both. We endorse the proposal of the University Committee on
Calendar Reform to synchronize the calendars of the several Faculties of the University.
We have not explored fully all possible opportunities for enhancement of the
undergraduate curriculum through collaboration with the graduate and professional schools. We
believe, however, that there are other models worthy of serious consideration and perhaps
development. These might include interdisciplinary course clusters or concentrations or tracks
within concentrations that draw on faculty resources outside the FAS, special programs in the
fourth year for students eligible for advanced standing or perhaps for all students, and joint
undergraduate and graduate degree programs. We note with interest the new program that will
allow undergraduates to enroll simultaneously in the College and the New England Conservatory
of Music to receive the Master of Music degree from the Conservatory in one year, rather than
two, after earning an undergraduate degree in the ordinary manner from Harvard College.
Similar possibilities may exist within the University.
D. January term
We recommend the creation of a January term in conjunction with the proposed

University-wide calendar. Even before the University Committee on Calendar Reform began
its work, participants in the curricular review had begun to consider changes to the FAS
academic calendar. We were motivated both by a desire to complete fall term exams before the
Winter Recess, thereby giving students a true break during the holiday season, and by the
possibilities for creative use of a January term. Adoption of the proposed calendar with full
synchronization of the fall and spring terms across the University provides an opportunity for
developing exciting credit and non-credit educational experiences for our students.
45
A variety of models exist at other colleges and universities. Some institutions offer
regular academic courses. An extreme version of this model is Colorado College, where the
overall academic schedule is one in which students take the same eight courses per academic
year as we require in Harvard College, but they take them one at a time, each for a three-and-a-
half week period; this suggests that a full range of subject matter can be taught in this manner.
At the other extreme, some schools have January programs that focus almost entirely on
extracurricular and student- and faculty-initiated non-credit activities. We propose neither of
these, but rather suggest a hybrid model built around innovative academic and non-academic
experiences that are either difficult to accommodate within our regular fall and spring term
structures, or that can be better accomplished if students are able to focus on only one activity. It
can provide an opportunity for students to slow down, to take stock, and to focus their energy on
a single endeavor of their choice. Participation in a for-credit activity would also allow them to
lighten their course load during another term.
During such a January term, our own faculty, and faculty from other parts of the
University, might offer innovative courses that require a schedule that would be incompatible
with student and faculty obligations to other courses, courses that meet away from Cambridge
for part or all of the term, or courses that meet for extended blocks of time. A biology professor
might include a trip to the Galapagos archipelago as part of a course on Darwin and The Voyage
of the Beagle. A geology or archaeology class could include fieldwork away from Cambridge.
A professor of art and architecture may wish to teach a class on-site in Venice. In Cambridge,
students could study Spanish or Portuguese intensively to prepare for a spring term study abroad
experience in South America, where the fall term begins in March. A molecular biologist might
organize a team of undergraduates to tackle a research problem in an all-day laboratory format.
A professor of literature may wish to create a course that combines study of Shakespeare with a
live performance. A historian might teach a course on the history of Boston that involves on-site
fieldwork and research in the public records. A faculty member from the School of Public
Health could teach a course on HIV, tuberculosis, or mad cow disease. January might be a time
for special courses taught by distinguished visitors who can come to Cambridge for one month
but who would be unavailable for a full term. Students might also use this time to undertake
46
their own research projects, including thesis research, or to participate in an internship in or away
from Cambridge.
This could also be a time during which students could take part in an intensive public
service project, either in Cambridge or elsewhere. For example, a Harvard College team could
participate in Habitat for Humanity. This could also be a time for focused projects in the arts,
particularly for those students who find themselves unable to participate during a regular term
because of other obligations. Visiting directors, conductors, and choreographers might work
with student groups. Students have suggested that this would provide a time for leadership and
financial training for those beginning their terms as officers of student organizations. There
might also be other student-initiated activities. Some students suggested this as a time to learn a
new sport. In short, January has the potential to be a very lively time both in, and away from,
Harvard College.
How would these programs be administered? We recommend that there be an office

within Harvard College to work with students, faculty, and the directors of arts, athletic,
and public service programs to coordinate and administer a set of offerings in January.
Should January term activities be purely voluntary or should there be a minimum expectation
that students will participate, perhaps at least twice? Under what circumstances would students
earn academic credit for their January activities? Surely, a student should earn credit when
working with a faculty member in a course setting to cover a body of material that is
equivalent—though by design not identical—to a course during a regular fall or spring term. But
academic activities will fall along a spectrum and there will need to be a process for determining
credit-worthiness. Similar questions arise for faculty. We would not expect that faculty would
be required to teach during this period, but if they did choose to offer a course for credit, this
should properly be counted toward their teaching responsibilities. There are also issues related
to how tuition, room and board fees would be structured. We would expect financial aid to make
it possible for any student to be able to participate in any of the January term programs offered.
We do not mean to minimize the administrative and financial aspects of instituting a January
term, but in sum we believe that there are innovative opportunities both for Harvard College
47
students to explore their interests and for faculty to teach in creative new ways. This could be a
moment for different kinds of teaching and learning.
E. Arts in the curriculum
Harvard College is a community rich in artistic creation and performance. Much of this
activity falls outside of the curriculum. Without our attempting to be comprehensive, we note
that, among student organizations, there are 12 a cappella groups, two jazz bands and five
orchestras, 19 dance troupes, and 16 theater groups. Last year, some 70 plays and 450
concerts—more than one per day!—were performed. For twelve years, the Harvard community
has devoted the start of May to its Arts First! celebration of the arts at Harvard. Many Harvard
College students go on to distinguished careers in the creative arts, despite having studied more
traditional academic subjects in the arts and sciences as undergraduates.
Against this level of extracurricular activity, it is easy to forget the multiple curricular
opportunities in the practice and performance of the arts at Harvard College. The FAS
recognizes the value of artistic expression as part of a liberal education. To quote “The Practice
of the Arts at Harvard,” a 1973 statement by The President’s Committee on the Practice of the
Arts, chaired by Professor James S. Ackerman, “[T]he function of arts instruction in a liberal arts
curriculum … is to introduce students to forms of learning and communication which have their
own power, validity, and application, and which offer alternatives to the symbolic modes of
words and figures and to the ways of knowing and feeling that they can convey.” The statement
goes on to note that “performing a comedy or tragedy by Shakespeare or a trio by Beethoven can
be a means of discovering and measuring dimensions in the work that some students would miss
in reading the play or analyzing the trio in class. Likewise, making a sculpture or a film can
generate a sensitivity to the problems of genre for which there is no substitute.”7
The Department of Visual and Environmental Studies offers instruction in painting,

drawing, sculpture, printmaking, design, conceptual practice, film, video, and photography.
Concentration requirements include progression in one medium and exposure to at least one
7
“The Practice of the Arts at Harvard,” Harvard University Gazette, June 1, 1973.
48
additional medium. The Department of Music introduces concentrators to composition, and

offers several courses in performance. As noted earlier, the Faculty voted in April to formalize a
relationship with the New England Conservatory of Music to allow a small number of students to
enroll simultaneously at the Conservatory and Harvard College. The English Department offers
a variety of courses in creative writing, and about 20 percent of its concentrators complete
creative writing theses. Courses in acting, directing, dance, and stage design are offered by the
Committee on Dramatics. In many cases, student demand for spaces in these courses far exceeds
the number that can be accommodated.
All of this curricular activity in the practice and performance of the arts often falls in the
shadow of extracurricular activities. We believe that there is room for greater curricular activity
and curricular innovation in the arts. We can imagine courses co-taught by critics and creators
that bridge the gap between analysis and practice. A January term could be a time to both
analyze and produce, direct, or perform a play. We can imagine that there might be greater space
for artistic practice in the requirements of some concentrations. We endorse granting degree
credit not for performance or other artistic endeavors themselves, but rather as components of
courses with formal instruction. The type of courses that we have in mind can only exist with
faculty support. We recommend that the Dean for the Humanities work to expand
curricular opportunities for performance and the creative arts in Harvard College, and
that the Faculty be receptive toward proposals for new tracks and new concentrations that
focus on the practice and performance of the arts.
F. Public service in the curriculum
Harvard College seeks to instill in students a sense of social responsibility, and students
have demonstrated their great interest through public service activities. During the 2003
academic year, 47 percent of all Harvard College students responding to a survey of enrolled
students reported that they volunteered in the community. This year, 1,800 students participate
in Phillips Brooks House Association activities alone, and many more participate through the
Houses and Neighborhood Development program and other programs. In recent years, there has
been a significant increase in interest in public service careers. Comparing the senior survey
49
responses of the Class of 2003 with its 2001 counterpart, we found a 45 percent increase in the
number of students considering or planning to pursue a career in public service; this number
accounted for 32 percent of the Class of 2003. A similar pattern emerged on the freshman
surveys completed over the same time period.
In contrast with the vitality of these service programs, there are relatively few
opportunities for integration of students’ public service activities with their course work.
Students seek opportunities to contextualize and reflect upon their public service activities
through courses on topics that inform their public service work, courses that include a public
service component, and courses in which they can draw on their service activities for papers and
projects. There are a few courses in the FAS—Social Analysis 54: American Society and Public
Policy; Spanish 40: Spanish and the Community; Portuguese 40: Portuguese and the
Community; and Chinese Literature 132: Chinatowns, being some examples—that include a
public service component or option as part of the course. Several classes in other parts of the
University—the Graduate School of Education, the Medical School, and the Kennedy School of
Government, for example—have well-developed public service components as part of their
course work. Facilitating cross-registration can thereby increase opportunities for
undergraduates.
We do not endorse the idea of granting academic credit for student public service per se,
but we believe that there are opportunities for building stronger ties between public service and
the curriculum, and for enhancing curricular support for public service activities. For example, a
course on poverty or on housing policy might include a component in which students participate
in a program in a public housing project. One of the greatest benefits of incorporating public
service into an academic agenda is the opportunity for students to have their service activities
evaluated by faculty or teaching staff; such evaluation is most feasible when the activities take
place in the context of regular coursework.
Our sense is that there are faculty members who would like to include a public service
component in their courses, but find that the logistics of doing this responsibly present
significant obstacles. There is considerable work involved in establishing sites for public service
50
activities, training section leaders to work with students in these settings, and supervising the
students’ work. We recommend that the College work with Phillips Brooks House and
other organizations to assist faculty who would like to include a public service component
in a course. Courses with a public service component may require greater supervision of
students than other courses generally do, so we recommend that sections in courses that
include a formal public service component normally be limited to 12 students. The Bok
Center, in collaboration with Phillips Brooks House, might be able to design programs to train
section leaders on how best to incorporate public service into courses and to supervise students.
VIII. Fostering Pedagogical Improvement and Innovation
Harvard College, as part of the FAS and the wider University, is known for its
commitment to outstanding research and for providing the opportunity for students to learn from
scholars who have made or will soon make important advances in knowledge. We should also
be regarded as a place committed to outstanding and innovative pedagogy to foster a strong
learning environment for our students. As one colleague wrote in a letter at the outset of the
review, “Being a newly hired professor at Harvard, I often receive compliments when being
introduced as such. All compliments have been along the lines of ‘you must be really smart’ or
‘you must be a great scholar.’ My dream is that someday when I am being introduced as a
Harvard professor, the complimentary line will be ‘you must be a great scholar and a great
teacher!’” In this spirit, we reviewed the resources already in place to support strong pedagogy
in the College, and we offer several recommendations to strengthen this commitment.
A. Improving the classroom experience
A number of steps can be taken to improve the quality of instruction in the College.
First, given the emphasis that we place on small group instruction, we recommend that
resources be developed to increase the number of seminar rooms and small classrooms
with flexible layouts to facilitate group discussion and with appropriate instructional media
equipment. In order to take full advantage of the opportunities for student-faculty and student-
student interaction that we seek by providing more opportunities for students to be in smaller
51
classes, these classes must take place in rooms of appropriate size and design. If classes are
small, but nevertheless must meet in classrooms designed for a lecture format, we will not have
achieved all of our goals.
While we seek to increase the opportunities for students to take small classes, we will
surely continue to have larger courses, if only because of students’ common interest in studying
particular subjects, our desire to permit students to study the subjects that interest them most, and
the extraordinary talent of many faculty in providing outstanding and attractive courses. But
even within these larger instructional settings, there are ways to enhance pedagogy and promote
more active learning in the classroom. We recommend that lecture halls be designed to
facilitate more interactive instruction, and to be equipped to enable the use of the widest
range of technologies. As we renovate existing classrooms and build new ones, more should be
designed in a “bowl” format in which students can see and interact with one another rather than
sit in fixed rows focused only on the professor. This format would facilitate and encourage
debate and exchange among students and between students and instructor, for more active
participation in class. Professor Eric Mazur, of the Division of Engineering and Applied
Sciences and the Department of Physics, along with others, has demonstrated how wireless
technologies can be used in ways that enable students to participate and respond to questions in
large classes. FAS lecture halls should be equipped to accommodate media presentations and
these sorts of innovative teaching techniques so that lectures can achieve their full potential,
which is ideally beyond what could be provided in a textbook or on a computer screen.
In many larger courses, even those that employ the most cutting-edge technologies to
support active learning by students, subdividing the class into smaller sections for more “hands-
on” grappling with the subject matter of the course will still be valuable. To increase the
opportunities for all students to participate in discussions and have practice in making oral
presentations, and so that section instructors can work more intensively with individual students,
we recommend that the Dean explore the possibility of reducing section size from 18 to 15
in those courses large enough to subdivide into two or more sections (ordinarily those that
enroll more than 22 students). We recognize, however, that in many cases larger sections (or
no sections at all) will be preferable to hiring less qualified section leaders or limiting course
52
enrollment. So that section leaders are well qualified not only in terms of their knowledge of the
course material, but also in terms of pedagogical techniques to enhance learning in the course,
we recommend that pedagogical training be required of all new section leaders, including
instruction in guiding and evaluating student writing and oral presentation. The FAS
already has this expectation,8 but more remains to be done to ensure its implementation. This
kind of training should be an important component of the training that we provide all Ph.D.
candidates. Recognizing the great commitment that many graduate students make to their
teaching, we recommend that the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences create a new
fellowship to recognize outstanding teachers. Just as Harvard College Professorships and
Abramson Prizes recognize outstanding faculty contributions to undergraduate teaching by
supporting their research, this fellowship can similarly recognize contributions made by graduate
students.
We recommend that concentrations and individual courses create more

opportunities for students to engage in collaborative, small-group work, and that support
be provided for introducing these opportunities. Several considerations come together in our
making this recommendation. We know from the surveys that undergraduates complete that
many of them claim to find greater satisfaction in their extracurricular activities than they find in
their course work. A possible explanation for this is that most extracurricular activities—
whether playing on an athletic team, performing in a dance company, or producing a
publication—involve working as part of a team. This kind of activity promotes active learning.
Our academic program by contrast, with notable exceptions in engineering and computer
science, is focused almost exclusively on individual work. As we seek to increase our students’
level of engagement and satisfaction with their academic work, we should learn from our own
success in achieving these goals in other areas of College life. Collaborative work is also an
effective pedagogical tool, as students find themselves playing the dual role of teacher and
learner with their peers. We also note the increasingly collaborative nature of research and of
projects in the working world. If we are to prepare our students well, it will be important that we
provide them curricular opportunities to work as part of a team. Our sense is that many faculty
avoid team projects because of what they perceive to be the difficulty of providing individual
8
Information for Faculty Offering Instruction in Arts and Sciences, 2003-2004, p. 39-40.
53
evaluations. We note, however, that such assignments are more common in the professional
schools, where faculty do manage to assign individual grades, and employers regularly recognize
differentially the contributions made by members of a team.
As students confront new materials, they may be uncertain about how to judge their
progress. We recommend that courses include several written assignments during the term,
including at least one graded assignment before mid-semester, so that students may
calibrate their progress. Although grades on papers and examinations provide some
information for students, written comments or individual conferences are often more valuable in
guiding students in their learning.
Faculty should seek and welcome evaluations from students to identify what is working
well in their courses, and where there is need for improvement. We recommend that all
courses be evaluated both at mid-term and at the end of the term, and that these
evaluations be completed in an online format with the ability to customize questions for the
specific course. Completing course evaluations electronically preserves valuable class time and
allows more thoughtful responses from students. Including several standard questions across
courses and the further capacity to add questions specific to the structure and content of the
course would allow more focused and useful feedback from students. Some of this information
might be purely for the instructor’s use and not for publication in the CUE Guide. We
understand that the Committee on Undergraduate Education has already begun discussions of
moving the end-of-term course evaluation process from paper to an online format. They hope to
implement a pilot project next year.
B. Coordinating resources to improve pedagogy
The FAS has exceptional pedagogical resources in the Derek Bok Center for Teaching
and Learning, the Harvard Writing Project, and the Instructional Computing Group. The Bok
Center offers a variety of programs to help new and experienced teachers, both faculty and
section leaders, improve and perfect their craft. These include fall and winter teaching
conferences, individual and group consultations, work with individual courses, videotaped and
54
critiqued practice and actual teaching sessions, programs on teaching in the American classroom,
and “master classes” for experienced instructors that focus on such topics as lecturing,
discussion-leading skills, and grading. The Harvard Writing Project, a part of the Expository
Writing Program, works with individual courses and entire concentrations to train instructors on
how to respond to and evaluate student writing. The Instructional Computing Group (ICG), an
arm of FAS Computer Services, offers a custom-designed platform for developing and
administering course web sites, as well as training and consultation on using computers and the
Web in teaching.
We found, however, that the effectiveness of these resources is hampered by too little
coordination, by limited links to departments, instructional committees, and concentrations, and
by insufficient visibility. To address these issues and to enhance the stature of pedagogy within
the FAS, we recommend that the Dean of Harvard College more closely coordinate the
activities of pedagogical support programs. In addition to the Bok Center, the Writing
Project, and ICG, this coordination should include the Office of Instructional Research and
Evaluation, so that appropriate data are collected and analyzed in support of improving pedagogy
in the College. We seek to create an environment that encourages thoughtful experimentation
and greater reflection about teaching approaches, an environment in which outstanding
instruction, pedagogical improvement, and pedagogical innovation and assessment are
celebrated. The pedagogical centers should circulate research on teaching and learning and on
best pedagogical practices at Harvard and at other colleges and universities. They should make
grants to encourage innovation and experimentation, and should coordinate assessment of new
and effective approaches.
The world should view Harvard College as an institution committed to outstanding

instruction within a research environment. We cannot overstate the importance of mentoring
graduate students and faculty with respect to teaching, and of creating a culture in which
everyone teaching in Harvard College is committed to pedagogical excellence, improvement,
and innovation. More attention should be paid to the dissemination of information about the
important role that excellent teaching plays in the appointment and promotion of faculty. We
note that the recent review of FAS’s procedures for faculty searches, appointments, and
55
promotions provides for early advice and assistance to new colleagues that pays careful attention
to teaching.
IX. Conclusion
This report marks the end of the first phase of a curricular renewal process. It frames a
set of proposals for discussion among faculty, students, and the wider Harvard community. By
design, we have stopped short of actual legislation and specific plans for implementation,
recognizing that the recommendations we have made must be scrutinized and debated. We
understand that many proposals will need further elaboration before Faculty legislation can be
proposed.
The curriculum outlined in this document represents a reaffirmation of this Faculty’s

commitment to offering an outstanding education in the arts and sciences as a firm foundation
for Harvard College graduates as they go out into a world of uncertainty and change. It
recognizes that we bring together in Harvard College exceptionally talented students and faculty,
it grants students greater freedom to explore their interests, and it challenges faculty to expand
the available range of opportunities for learning and teaching. It marks a step back from
specialization as the hallmark of excellence in undergraduate education, and instead asks faculty
to focus on the broad education of our undergraduates. It calls for a curriculum that is simpler
than the one we have today, and that provides greater opportunity for students to explore and
discover new passions and to shape their educations in consultation with faculty mentors. It
offers enough elective choices so that students can go deeply into one area, build on a variety of
interests, or sample broadly. In all of this, it remains true to our mission as a college of arts and
sciences in the liberal tradition: to educate students to be independent, knowledgeable, rigorous,
and creative thinkers, with a sense of social responsibility, so that they may lead productive lives
in national and global communities.
As we reaffirm these principles of liberal education, we recognize that different times call
for different emphases in the curriculum, and we seek to expand our offerings in the realms of
international studies, the sciences, and in cross-disciplinary work. We call for making a
56
significant international experience an expectation of all students, while committing ourselves to

identifying and creating a set of study, internship, and research opportunities abroad and to
providing resources so that all students can benefit from these opportunities. We seek to prepare
students for these experiences before they go, and to build on these experiences once they have
returned, through foreign language and other course work and opportunities through our
international centers. We propose making science a larger portion of our general education
requirement, creating pathways that permit students to extend their work in the sciences beyond
what is required of them. An introductory science course should not be intentionally designed to
be the last science course a student will take. Our emphasis on graduating broadly educated
individuals underscores the importance we place on lowering the boundaries between academic
disciplines, by creating Harvard College Courses that introduce students to important areas of
knowledge in an integrated way, by allowing students to include a cluster of work that crosses
disciplinary boundaries as part of their concentration programs, and by introducing senior
seminars that bring together students with different disciplinary training to tackle a problem. We
also seek to expand curricular opportunities in the arts and to facilitate connections between
courses and public service activities. At the same time, we call for changes that will strengthen
students’ basic writing, speaking, and quantitative skills, and provide arenas in which they can
work collaboratively.
By expanding the Freshman Seminar Program and directing students to these and other
small courses early in their time in the College, we seek to create an environment in which
students recognize that faculty are prepared to work closely with undergraduates. Although the
experience for students in large concentrations may never replicate that of students in smaller
concentrations, we must organize our resources to ensure that all students find themselves in
small upper-level courses taught by faculty in their concentrations and beyond. The framework
we outline also seeks to build on our strengths as a research university by bringing more students
into the research enterprise, engaging students as research assistants, and enabling them, indeed
encouraging them, to undertake their own research projects. We also hope to increase the
benefits that we draw from Harvard College’s place at the center of the University by reducing
the barriers that stand between undergraduates and the intellectual resources of the graduate and
professional schools, making it easier for students and faculty to cross those borders to take and
57
teach appropriate courses. When implemented, our proposals regarding freshman seminars,
tutorials, junior seminars, capstone experiences, advising, and undergraduate research will ensure
that students interact closely with several faculty members during their time in the College. We
seek to create an environment that is known for the outstanding teaching of undergraduates and
in which pedagogical experimentation and innovation are encouraged and supported.
In closing, we share an observation made by Professor Charles E. Rosenberg of the

Department of the History of Science and then echoed by others at a symposium that we held in
November for participants in the review process. Professor Rosenberg noted that all curricula
are defined by the degree of trust that they place in students and faculty. As we move forward,
we seek to increase the trust we place in faculty to develop innovative courses and other
opportunities in the mission of educating Harvard College students broadly in the arts and
sciences, and we seek to increase the trust we place in students that they will choose wisely. We
believe we can create a stronger community of learning in which students and faculty work
together in a common enterprise.
58
Appendix 1
PARTICIPANTS IN THE CURRICULAR REVIEW
Steering Committee: Benedict H. Gross (co-chair), William C. Kirby (co-chair), Peter K. Bol, Lizabeth
Cohen, Jay M. Harris, Eric N. Jacobsen, Lawrence F. Katz, Richard M. Losick, Lisa L. Martin,
Diana Sorensen, Carol J. Thompson, Jeffrey Wolcowitz
Students’ Overall Academic Experience: Jay M. Harris (co-chair), Lisa L. Martin (co-chair), Kathleen
Donohue, Göran Ekström, James Engell, Georgene B. Herschbach, Daniel E. Lieberman, Robb
Moss, Judith S. Palfrey, Zachary S. Podolsky ’04, Victoria L. Sprow ’06, Martin R. West G4
Pedagogy: Lizabeth Cohen (co-chair), Richard M. Losick (co-chair), Aaron Allen G5, Julie A. Buckler,
Gary J. Feldman, Lynn Mary Festa, David B. Fithian, Mary Gaylord, Joseph K. Green ’05, Sheila
Lopez ’04, Scot T. Martin, Joel Podolny
General Education: Peter K. Bol (co-chair), Eric N. Jacobsen (co-chair), Emmanuel K. Akyeampong,
Michael P. Brenner, Elizabeth M. Doherty, Jason A. Kaufman, Sandra Naddaff, Stefan T. Patrikis
’06, Ann Pearson, Michael J. Sandel, Carol Steiker, Ryan Taliaferro G4, Rosalie C. Thede ’06
Concentrations: Lawrence F. Katz (co-chair), Diana Sorensen (co-chair), Mahzarin R. Banaji, Eileen C.
Chow, Kathleen M. Coleman, Nicholas Josefowitz ’05, John T. O’Keefe, Michael B. McElroy,
Curtis T. McMullen, Tommie Shelby, Colette J. Shen ’04, Priscilla P. Song G3, Stephen M. Walt
59
Appendix 2
THE UNDERGRADUATE ACADEMIC PROGRAM FOR THE CLASS OF 2007
General Structure of the Curriculum
32 semester courses with passing grades required to graduate.

Students generally take 4 courses per term for 8 terms.
Concentration Requirements: up to 1/2 of the student's courses, with a small number of exceptions
Other Requirements: at least 1/4 of the student's courses
Electives: roughly 1/4 of the student's courses
Expository Writing
All students must earn a passing letter-grade in Expos 20; some are advised to take Expos 10 first. Expos
20 is a requirement of the first year.
Foreign Language
Satisfied by a score of 600 on a College Board SAT II Test, a score of 5 on an AP test, a score of 7 on an
International Baccalaureate Higher Level test, a sufficient score on a Harvard placement test, or a passing
letter-grade in a full year of a language at Harvard. Students are expected to meet this requirement during
the first year.
Core Curriculum
11 areas: Foreign Cultures Literature and Arts B Science A

Historical Study A Literature and Arts C Science B
Historical Study B Moral Reasoning Social Analysis
Literature and Arts A Quantitative Reasoning
Students are exempt from 4 areas on the basis of their concentration, with the goal of requiring the 7 areas
that would ensure the greatest breadth of education in combination with work in concentration. Students
must earn a passing letter grade in one course in each of the required areas. Department courses do not
count for Core credit except for those designated as department alternates and listed in the Handbook for
Students and in Courses of Instruction. Alterations to the Core Requirement for a student may only be
granted by petition to the Standing Committee on the Core Program.
Field of Concentration
All students must meet the requirements of a field of concentration, or a joint concentration combining
aspects of two concentrations into a coherent whole, or a special concentration of one's own design
approved by a faculty committee. Most concentrations offer “basic” and “honors” tracks. Several are
“honors only” and some of these require that students apply to be admitted.
Students choose their concentrations at the end of the first year. A faculty member designated as Head
Tutor or Director of Undergraduate Studies oversees advising in each concentration.
60
Other Curricular Opportunities
Freshman Seminars: First-year students may enroll in small-group courses, ordinarily limited to 12
students, to work closely with a faculty member on a subject of shared interest. These settings also
provide an opportunity for students to work collaboratively with their peers, to participate actively in
their own learning, and to develop and refine their analytical skills. Freshman Seminars are offered
on a wide range of topics, with representation from virtually every academic discipline. The program
has expanded its offerings in recent years, with 102 Freshman Seminars offered in 2003-2004.
Study Abroad: Students may petition through the Office of International Programs for up to eight
half-courses of study abroad. Students studying in non-Anglophone countries are encouraged to have
studied a language of the host country for at least one year before the start of the program. As part of
their academic programs during each term abroad, students in non-Anglophone countries will
ordinarily be expected to take either an appropriate language course or a course taught entirely in a
language of the host country. A student who earns one or two full (four half-course) terms of degree
credit for an approved program of study abroad may reduce his or her Core requirement by one area
for each full term of credit; a student who studies abroad for a summer or who receives partial credit
for a term may petition to meet the Foreign Cultures requirement on the basis of the work completed
abroad.
Foreign Language Citations: Students may earn a citation in a wide variety of languages by
completing four half-courses of language instruction beyond the first-year level and/or courses taught
primarily in the foreign language; at least two must be at the third-year level or beyond. Students
must complete these courses with grades of B- or better. A citation in a modern language may be
used to satisfy the Foreign Cultures requirement; students earning citations in classical languages may
satisfy the Foreign Cultures requirement by taking an additional half-course that places the citation
language substantially in a modern context. Concentrators in language departments whose
concentration work is built on a particular language or set of languages may not also earn citations in
those languages.
Undergraduate Teacher Education Program: By combining work in the Faculty of Arts and
Sciences with work at the Graduate School of Education, students may complete the requirements for
certification to teach in middle or secondary public schools in Massachusetts and states with which
Massachusetts has reciprocity.
Cross-Registration: Students may cross-register to take courses at MIT or in other Harvard Faculties.
Also, in certain cases, students may make arrangements to enroll for one or two courses at other
Boston-area institutions with which we do not have cross-registration agreements, while remaining
enrolled in the College.
61
Appendix 3
THE UNDERGRADUATE CONCENTRATIONS:
NUMBERS OF CONCENTRATORS AND COURSE REQUIREMENTS, 2003-2004
Number of Concentrators Number of Requirements
CONCENTRATION Full Joint/ Joint/ Basic Honors

Primary Secondary
Afro-American Studies 8 3 11 14 16
Anthropology 126 10 7 10 13
Applied Math 104 0 0 NA 16
Astronomy and Astrophysics 8 7 7 12 16
Biochemical Sciences 234 1 1 12 16
Biology 290 2 1 13 16
Chemistry 89 1 2 12-14 14-16
Chemistry and Physics 39 5 1 NA 13-16
Classics 44 4 9 10-12 12-14
Computer Science 98 8 9 10-12 12-14
Earth and Planetary Sciences 24 0 2 12-14 15-16
East Asian Studies 32 5 28 15-16 16
Economics 643 30 35 13 15
Engineering Sciences 85 2 1 NA 14-16/20 for SB
English and American Lit & Lang 270 20 6 13 15
Environmental Sci and Pub Policy 56 8 2 16 17
Folklore and Mythology 17 0 2 NA 14
Germanic Language and Lit 3 2 1 9-10 11-12
Government 552 6 3 12 14
History 293 11 7 12 14
History and Literature 192 5 0 NA 16
History and Science 100 5 4 NA 15
History of Art and Architecture 57 5 10 13 15
Linguistics 27 5 4 14 16
Literature 55 1 1 NA 16
Mathematics 73 18 36 12 12 + thesis
Music 31 13 7 14 -15 16
Near East Languages and Civ 6 3 5 13 14
Philosophy 64 6 10 12 13-15
Physics 88 37 12 12 13-15
Psychology 338 7 5 12 14-15
Religion 41 11 11 NA 14
Romance Languages and Lit 46 4 16 12 14
Sanskrit and Indian Studies 7 0 3 13 14
Slavic Languages and Literatures 9 2 1 12 14
Social Studies 298 11 0 NA 16
Sociology 75 17 7 12 12
Special Concentrations 15 0 0 14 16
Statistics 8 1 2 12 14
Visual & Environ Studies 82 7 7 NA 14
Women’s Studies 9 4 11 NA 13
62
Appendix 4
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
General Education
1. We recommend that the Core Program be succeeded by a general education requirement that will
enhance curricular choice, educate students in a set of areas that are defined broadly, include a
wide range of courses, and provide for the development of a new set of integrative, foundational
courses. (p. 13)
2. We recommend that the FAS develop a new set of courses, to be known as “Harvard College
Courses,” that will serve as a central component of a new general education requirement. (p. 14)
3. We recommend that Harvard College Courses provide one means to fulfill a general education
requirement. Students should also have the opportunity to meet the requirement by selecting
courses drawn from departmental and other offerings and representing work across broad areas of
knowledge. (p. 15)
4. We recommend that the Dean, in consultation with the Faculty, set out the specific criteria for
Harvard College Courses, and define the structure of requirements for general education. (p. 16)
5. We recommend that the international and science components of the general education
requirement be significantly strengthened. (p. 16)
6. We recommend that there be a review of the Expository Writing Program. (p. 18)
7. We recommend that concentrations make instruction and feedback on written and oral
communication an integral part of the concentration program. (p. 18)
8. We recommend that the language requirement be enhanced as follows: all students who meet the
language requirement at matriculation under present rules will be required to take one term of a
foreign language or a one-term course taught in a foreign language. (p. 19)
9. We recommend that special attention be paid to quantitative skills in the definition of the general
education requirement and in the criteria for Harvard College Courses. (p. 20)
10. We recommend that the Dean convene a working group of science faculty to plan the redesign of
introductory science courses and to reassess the pre-medical curriculum. (p. 21)
11. We recommend that the Dean and the Faculty examine ways in which to incorporate the study of
ethical and moral questions into the College’s general education program. (p. 22)
Concentration
12. We recommend that concentration choice be moved to the end of the first term of the sophomore
year. (p. 24)
63
13. We recommend that each concentration review its requirements with an eye toward reducing
them to a level appropriate to a liberal arts and sciences education for non-specialists, and that
there be a presumptive cap of 12 on the number of concentration requirements. (p. 26)
14. We recommend that each concentration, or field-specific track within a concentration, formulate a
single set of requirements for all concentrators, in place of the existing basic and honors tracks.
(p. 27)
15. We recommend the development, where appropriate, of alternative capstone experiences to the
senior thesis. (p. 27)
16. We recommend that all tutorial programs be headed by professorial faculty with responsibility for
the oversight of syllabi and instruction. (p. 28)
17. We recommend that all concentrations introduce a junior seminar program of faculty-taught,
small-group seminars, or otherwise ensure that all concentrators enroll in a small course taught by
a faculty member. (p. 28)
18. We recommend that all concentrations review their requirements to reassess the balance between
disciplinary focus and opportunities for cross-disciplinary work, at both the introductory and
advanced levels. (p. 29)
19. We recommend that the Head Tutor or Director of Undergraduate Studies in each concentration
(with a preference for the latter title because of its clarity) be a senior faculty member charged
with oversight of concentration advising and monitoring of students’ academic progress within
the concentration. (p. 30)
20. We recommend that concentrations, particularly the large concentrations, increase faculty
participation in concentration advising. (p. 30)
21. We recommend that each student be assigned a concentration adviser. (p. 30)
22. We recommend that students be required to meet with an adviser for a substantial discussion at
least twice per year. (p. 30)
23. We recommend that each concentration ensure that every student who wishes to pursue a senior
thesis is matched with a thesis adviser. (p. 31)
24. We recommend that each concentration establish an Undergraduate Studies Committee,

composed of concentrators, to provide systematic feedback and suggestions for improvements in
the course offerings and structure of the concentration. (p. 31)
25. We recommend that the Educational Policy Committee engage each concentration in a review of
its purpose and structure as part of a recertification of all concentrations. (p. 32)
Introducing Students to the College: The First-Year Experience
26. We recommend that students no longer be required to meet the foreign language requirement in
the freshman year. (p. 33)
64
27. We recommend that the FAS continue to expand the Freshman Seminar Program with the goal of
offering enough seminars to accommodate the entire freshman class by academic year 2006-2007.
(p. 34)
28. We recommend that all freshmen be required to enroll in a small-group, faculty-led seminar, such
as a Freshman Seminar or its equivalent, in the freshman year. (p. 34)
29. We recommend that departments in which courses are tracked have clear provisions for
correcting a student’s placement during the semester. (p. 34)
30. We recommend that students be required to take at least two courses during the freshman year
that are not letter-graded, and be allowed to take up to four. (p. 35)
31. We recommend that the Dean of Harvard College create an office to coordinate all aspects of
academic advising. (p. 36)
32. We recommend that pre-concentration academic advising be separated from proctoring, and that
each freshman be assigned to an adviser with related academic interests. (p. 37)
33. We recommend that the Dean of Harvard College work with departments to encourage more
faculty to serve as pre-concentration advisers. (p. 37)
34. We recommend that the advising office organize a series of dinners for 15 freshmen with a
faculty member, the students and faculty member matched by broad areas of academic interest.
(p. 37)
35. We recommend that, building upon existing procedures by which students indicate possible areas
of concentration, the concentrations take responsibility for sharing important advising
information with prospective concentrators. (p. 38)
36. We recommend that freshmen be assigned to a House before the start of freshman year and be
housed together in dormitory entries affiliated with their House. (p. 38)
Expanding Opportunities
37. We recommend there be an expectation that all Harvard College students pursue a significant
international experience during their time in the College, and that completion of such an
experience be noted on the transcript. (p. 40)
38. We recommend that the FAS expand its allocation of financial support, including summer grants,
salaries, stipends, and loans, in order to make it possible for all students to pursue at least one
international experience. (p. 40)
39. We recommend that the Office of International Programs, in consultation with the concentrations,
identify study abroad programs in which Harvard College students may enroll for degree and
concentration credit, and that all concentrations plan requirements and course sequences to
accommodate one term of study abroad. (p. 41)
40. We recommend an increase in funding for undergraduates to engage in faculty-supervised

research projects over the summer. (p. 43)
65
41. We recommend that the College provide to all students comprehensive information and advice
about faculty-supervised research projects and funding sources. (p. 43)
42. We recommend that the Dean, working with the President, Provost, and the deans of other
Faculties, develop policies to reduce the financial and administrative barriers that impede faculty
from one part of the University teaching in another. (p. 45)
43. We endorse the proposal of the University Committee on Calendar Reform to synchronize the
calendars of the several Faculties of the University. (p. 45)
44. We recommend the creation of a January term in conjunction with the proposed University-wide
calendar. (p. 45)
45. We recommend that there be an office within Harvard College to work with students, faculty, and
directors of arts, athletic, and public service programs to coordinate and administer a set of
offerings in January. (p. 47)
46. We recommend that the Dean for the Humanities work to expand curricular opportunities for
performance and the creative arts in Harvard College, and that the Faculty be receptive toward
proposals for new tracks and new concentrations that focus on the practice and performance of
the arts. (p. 49)
47. We recommend that the College work with Phillips Brooks House and other organizations to
assist faculty who would like to include a public service component in a course. (p. 51)
48. We recommend that sections in courses that include a formal public service component normally
be limited to 12 students. (p. 51)
Fostering Pedagogical Improvement and Innovation
49. We recommend that resources be developed to increase the number of seminar rooms and small
classrooms with flexible layouts to facilitate group discussion and with appropriate instructional
media equipment. (p. 51)
50. We recommend that lecture halls be designed to facilitate more interactive instruction, and to be
equipped to enable the use of the widest range of technologies. (p. 52)
51. We recommend that the Dean explore the possibility of reducing section size from 18 to 15 in
those courses large enough to subdivide into two or more sections (ordinarily those that enroll
more than 22 students). (p. 52)
52. We recommend that pedagogical training be required of all new section leaders, including
instruction in guiding and evaluating student writing and oral presentation. (p. 53)
53. We recommend that the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences create a new fellowship to
recognize outstanding teachers. (p. 53)
54. We recommend that concentrations and individual courses create more opportunities for students
to engage in collaborative, small-group work, and that support be provided for introducing these
opportunities. (p. 53)
66
55. We recommend that courses include several written assignments during the term, including at
least one graded assignment before mid-semester, so that students may calibrate their progress.
(p. 54)
56. We recommend that all courses be evaluated both at mid-term and at the end of the term, and that
these evaluations be completed in an online format with the ability to customize questions for the
specific course. (p. 54)
57. We recommend that the Dean of Harvard College more closely coordinate the activities of
pedagogical support programs. (p. 55)
67

harvard college curriculum rview

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

harvard college curriculum rview

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

harvard college curriculum rview

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Harvard University

Faculty of Arts and Sciences

A REPORT ON THE HARVARD COLLEGE

Appendix 1: Participants in the Curricular Review 59

In an era of increasing specialization and professionalization, we reaffirm our belief in a

II. A Brief History of the Harvard College Curriculum

The framework of concentration and distribution—depth and breadth—has continued to

III. Overview and Themes

In an era of increasing specialization, professionalization, and fragmentation in both

We seek to graduate broadly educated individuals, while encouraging them to develop a

As we renew our commitment to liberal education, we must also create a curriculum

First, today’s world requires a greater emphasis on internationalization. As the “Red

Sixth, as Harvard’s professional schools increasingly include scholars in core FAS

IV. General Education

How, then, should we conceive of a general education requirement? Different

A. More flexible requirements and Harvard College Courses

In reimagining the general education component of the Harvard College curriculum, we

We recommend that the Core Program be succeeded by a general education

B. Written and oral communication

Although Expository Writing serves as a common experience in providing students with

In the interest of strengthening instruction in written and oral communication, we

or by passing an examination in the freshman year. As computers with standard software

All students in Harvard College must complete the requirements of a field of

For some students, work in the field of concentration is an opportunity to focus on a

A. Timing of concentration choice

Pre-concentration academic advising in the freshman and sophomore years will be of

B. The structure of concentration requirements

We recognize, of course, that no single number of course requirements would be

First, tutorial experiences offer an excellent opportunity for increasing student-faculty

Second, junior tutorials seem to be in need of special consideration in some

There are several models for facilitating cross-disciplinary work in discipline-based

As students gain greater flexibility, both in concentrations and in the curriculum as a

concentration program, and to revise concentration requirements. As part of this process, we

VI. Introducing Students to the College: The First-Year Experience

A. The freshman year curriculum

concentrations have agreed to count Freshman Seminars toward concentration requirements.

Courses in which students are “tracked” based on different levels of preparation

As part of our emphasis on exploration, we also believe that students should be

In our current freshman advising system, each student is assigned to a proctor—usually a

VII. Expanding Opportunities

We do a great deal in Cambridge to foster international education and understanding.

Many Harvard College students include an international experience as part of their

Our conception of a significant international experience is broad. We seek to recognize

Making international experience—particularly term-time international experience—a

Considerable support for undergraduate research at Harvard exists already. Opportunities

We endorse an increase in the opportunities for undergraduates to engage in research

C. A college within a university

Although the undergraduate experience already takes some advantage of opportunities in

We recommend the creation of a January term in conjunction with the proposed

How would these programs be administered? We recommend that there be an office

E. Arts in the curriculum

The Department of Visual and Environmental Studies offers instruction in painting,

additional medium. The Department of Music introduces concentrators to composition, and

F. Public service in the curriculum

VIII. Fostering Pedagogical Improvement and Innovation

A. Improving the classroom experience

We recommend that concentrations and individual courses create more

B. Coordinating resources to improve pedagogy

The world should view Harvard College as an institution committed to outstanding